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.