Outline and Draft Introduction

Outline Proposal

1.      Introduction

a.       Statement of the Problem

                                                              i.      Defining Community (Capra and Jane Jacobs for this project)

1.      Democratic ideals of community (need better sources)

                                                            ii.      Introducing Mueller Development in East Austin

2.      Methodology

a.       Rhetoric of Place as a Speculative Instrument

b.      Evaluating Austin City Planning through Agency

3.      Literature Review

a.       History of East Austin: Understanding the Problem

                                                              i.      1928 Zoning Law

                                                            ii.      Land use predicated on homogeneity

b.      Defining Gentrification

                                                              i.      Lance Freeman, Robert Moses

c.       Authenticity in City Planning

                                                              i.      Sharon Zukin, Jane Jacobs

d.      New Urban Development

                                                              i.      http://www.cnu.org/

4.      Theory

a.       Public Sphere Theory

                                                              i.      Foundational theory using Habermas’ Public Sphere (insiders v. outsiders)-Counterpublic

1.      Critique of affect and emotional concerns of the counterpublic

                                                            ii.      Burkean Analysis of Mueller through Agency

1.      Austin City Council and Planning are the agents

5.      Artifact

a.       City Plan for Mueller Development

b.      Intention for New Urban Planning

c.       Public Discourse Surrounding Mueller Development

6.      Conclusion as a Reflective Practitioner

Introduction (Developed from Statement of Purpose)

As a resident of Austin, Texas for over five years, last Spring I decided to investigate the possibility of becoming a homeowner. For all intensive purposes, I’m an austenite and a young professional ready to make a statement, not only financially, but also aesthetically. I was going to become one of the first homeowners in the Mueller Development of East Austin. Mueller was a visionary plan, with dedicated research and development teams who were promoting compact, yet higher density neighborhoods compatible with the ideals of new urbanism. Mueller promoted diversity, sustainability, and East Austin revitalization. On its face it was my kind of neighborhood and exactly what I was looking for in a first home. However, at a closer glance, the politics of place and space related to the entire development plan were problematic, and in direct conflict with the goals and design guidelines intended. In fact, my first home would not be in the Mueller development, but in an adjacent East Austin community, effectively pushed out of the planning process. My personal experience with the Mueller development is important to this case study because as a reflective practitioner in the Academy, it is imperative to look at the implications of the Mueller development through the lenses of civic engagement and community development. If I was pushed out of a community based on said community’s purchasing guidelines as an employed young professional, who else has been displaced because of Mueller and what implications has it had on community engagement and community building in East Austin?

This essay will wrestle with the complexities of space and place in gentrified communities, and is specifically concerned with the conception and execution of the “new urban” Mueller Development. The Mueller development was conceived from a city plan to redevelop the Robert Mueller Municipal Airport, which was demolished and relocated in 1999. As touted on its website, Mueller is a green designed and new urban neighborhood on over 700 acres of land, which includes mixed income housing, shared front yard space, and outdoor communal space.[1] Although aesthetically pleasing, energy efficient, and arguably a net economic gain for a specific parcel of East Austin, Mueller threatens the authenticity and cultural community of East Austin. In an attempt to reconcile or at least transcend the ills of early 20^th century urban planning in Austin, Texas Mueller has actually exacerbated a problem by privileging economic growth over cultural identity. Although Mueller’s attempts at East Austin Revitalization might have been genuine, the execution of the 700 acre plot opens very deep wounds in communities of Austin that have seen their cultural identity threatened and experienced institutional divides created by racial, cultural and political motivation.

Sharon Zukin, in her seminal work, Naked City: the Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places speaks to authenticity, or “the look and feel of a place as well as the social connectedness that place inspires.”[2] This is to say, which Zukin and others argue, that the rhetoric of growth and progress often supersedes cultural identity in city council meetings. Through an examination of the Mueller development, close textual analyses of public discourse surrounding its planning and execution, and a textual analysis of the 1928 Austin City Zoning Plan, this essay will address how agency, specifically the Austin City Planning Board, eroded cultural and community identity in East Austin and continues to threaten the democratic ideals of community sustainability.  

I'm still having a hard time creating the ideal democratic framework for community sustainabilty. I want to root this ideal in the literature, but I haven't found what I'm looking for. Capra doesn't capture what I want, and I'm beginning to think that I should ground my litureature of participatory democracy in Public Sphere Theory. Any thoughts on this would be welcomed.......

---

[1] Mueller, Austin Texas. Found online at http://www.nuelleraustin.com/.

[2] Sharon Zukin. Naked City: the Death and Life of authentic Urban Places. (England: Oxford University Press, 2010). 220. 

Leadership and Agency in East Austin

Defining Gentrification as it relates to Austin

Framing a problem: Historical Roots of East Austin

Continued List of Resources

Resources

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A953471

http://atxhistory.org/race/lbjschool_policyreport_eastaustin

http://www.klru.org/austinnow/archives/gentrification/index.php

http://www.frbsf.org/cpreport/docs/austin_tx.pdf

Maps

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/carver/downloads/cityplancover.pdf

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/carver/downloads/cityplanpage.pdf

Maps of Mueller

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/planning/neighborhood/downloads/uhwp/mueller_connections.pdf

http://muellerfever.com/maps.php

Zukin: Authenticity and the City

In her seminal work, Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Spaces, Sharon Zukin almost exclusively addresses authenticity in relation to gentrification. Modern neighborhood developments, much like the Mueller development in Austin, are in search of an authentic brand, but paradoxically are driving out the very people that once made the neighborhood authentic. The central argument of my case study and essay for this course is that the Mueller development, in its attempts to rectify the fundamental ills caused by early 20^th century city planning, has in fact created a 700 acre exclusive property driving out the very people it intended to serve.

 Although Zukin speaks to the loss of authenticity in the Burroughs of New York, she sheds light on the complex nature of growth and its relationship to retaining history, culture and identity. There is no question that the city of Austin is going to continue to grow and become diverse. It has sustained a viable economy in the depths of a five year recession, it is a destination city for young professionals and entrepreneurs, it is a city at the center of technology research and development, a city that did not experience a real estate crash, home to a thriving University, and central to the entire state’s government infrastructure. In short, Austin will not be reducing in population size any time soon and the city must plan for its growth. The question remains is how the city grows and boosts its economy, but not at the expense of the history, culture, and identity of current residents and neighborhoods.

In a search to extend what Jane Jacobs called character and liveliness in the streets of New York, Zukin wanted to tap into an aesthetic that was completely reliant on emotion. She defined this as authenticity, or the “look and feel of a place as well as the social connectedness that place inspires.” (220) According to Zukin, “Because authenticity begins as an aesthetic category, it appeals to a cultural consumer, especially young people, but it also has a lot to do with economics and power.” (244)  In a city like Austin, one of the youngest median ages in all metropolitan cities, the political elite must cater to its driving economic forces. It is through the “rhetoric of growth” (227) used by elected officials and media representations of a city’s growth that allow developments like Mueller to catapult into our everyday vernacular. Mueller represents “an image that creates a language embodying our desire for a good place to live.” (227)  But at what expense? According to a study of community patterns prepared by Elizabeth Sobel at the Federal Reserve of Dallas, Sobel illustrates that communities like Mueller are great opportunities for those moving into the community, but at the expense of longtime residents. She states, in relation to gentrification happening in East Austin, “Locals see properties being flipped, and white-collar professionals without children are moving into expensive condos and houses that are newly renovated, expanded, or brand-new, which are driving land and housing values up exponentially leaving virtually no choice for low income residents who can no longer remain in the community.” (94)

This post only slightly touches on how I will root my argument in current literature regarding authenticity, gentrification, Austin city planning politics, agency, and public sphere theory. You will see several headings following this post will show the direction my case study is heading. As I sift through the literature, I will add to those headings in the coming days. I hope to hear from and look forward to your comments.

Mueller Development and the Rhetoric of Place

In moving forward and thinking about making connections from our class readings and activist scholarship, I find myself returning to my academic roots. This is to say, I’m beginning to make sense of the literature through image, aesthetics and the rhetoric of place. Professor Rhodes asked us to investigate a case study through image, or quite literally, use models to help guide our reasoning and research. It’s difficult for me to negotiate linear relationships, particularly in academia, so I began investigating actual images for my case study interests. As a new homeowner in East Austin, and part of the intellectual young professional elite driving the gentrification of East Austin, I find myself in a constant conundrum....am I part of the problem, the solution, or simply the process.

In thinking about the image of Austin, it is quite literally divided by highways. East Austin, or what is considered poor-lower-middle income people is divided from central austin by Interstate 35. Central Austin which is generally considered middle to higher income people is divided from West Austin by Loop 1 (Mopac) or from what is considered the most affluent and wealthy area in Austin. Highway 290 which travels East and West dissects the city based on socioeconomic and racial divides. 290 East toward’s Houston barricades one of the poorest areas of the city, while 290 West traveling through Austin’s Hill Country generally situates itself in the wealthiest school districts in the city. It is important to note that this is no phenomenon and is absolutely intentional. As Susana Almanza of Urban Project states, “perhaps the most vivid example of institutionalized racism in Austin was the 1928 city plan, a document that called for the establishment of a "Negro district" in East Austin.  This division between West and East Austin was underscored by the construction of East Avenue (completed in 1933), which became the site of present-day Interstate Highway 35 some three decades later.”

For my case study in this class, I plan to investigate the 1928 city ordinance, it’s implications on and for the ideal of “community” in East Austin, and speak to “new urban” developments and gentrification in the greater East Austin area. In making connections from the reading and our class discussions, I’m thinking through the lens of agency and public sphere theory. Along with those terms emerge other complexities like the rhetoric of identity politics, place, space, personal relationships with community and private vs. public partnerships in community building. 

For the purposes of my case study, there are three municipalities divided by four highways, all of which operate under the same local government structure. In class last week when speaking of public art projects, and the effects of Katrina on Mississippi, Professor Rhodes tried to get us to think beyond a political context. In giving this greater thought, I don’t think we can separate community building from a political context. The institutionalized oppression that Austin faced in 1928 and still largely faces today was entirely based on agency and political will.  Negotiating how “institutions” or “agency” interact with community will be a key focus in moving forward in my casework. This is not to say that ground up community organizing will be ignored, or that the people involved in community evolution will be lost, but it is important for my work to address hierarchy and its place in community change.

One of the communities that has been of interest of late is the Mueller development. Mueller is a new development in East Austin that replaces the old Austin Municipal Airport. It is over 700 acres, and each stage of development has been planned for the past 10 years. The drive behind Mueller was community. Sanctioned (key term here) by neighborhood regulations (also key) each house must have a front porch. The homes are closer than a stone’s throw away, backyards are shared, a percentage of the homes are green (being completely LEED compliant), and a percentage of the homes are considered affordable housing. It is a mixed income neighborhood with homes selling in the millions, and base level town homes and condos selling for 149,000. There are public parks, public pools, trails, and public art. There is a community website, and it touts itself as the community that brings people together. Regarding the rhetoric of place, space and aesthetics, the community is considered to be “new urbanism.” The politics of new urbanism is certainly something I will blog about more, but for now think about new urbanism as modern designs for nostalgic feel. Among the theories behind new urbanism design is that getting people to live in the front of the house or in public areas creates a sense of community. Within new urbanism, one will find the word “public” a half a dozen times in one paragraph. “Public” and urbanism to some extent are inherently related. However, one of the things that interests me about new urbanism, in the context specifically touted by Mueller, is it seems to be simultaneously correcting the ills of the 1928 zoning ordinances but also supporting key tenants of institutional segregation.  

As I move forward on my case study, I plan to continue to speak to the connections of space, place, identity, agency and the public sphere, specifically as it relates to the 1928 zoning ordinance and the Mueller development in East Austin.  Any thoughts, concerns, questions, or resources are welcomed and I look forward to hearing from you all. 


http://www.statesman.com/news/local/mueller-neighborhood-connects-residents-from-front-porches-to-899303.html?viewAsSinglePage=true


http://www.urbanhabitat.org/node/1825