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