累了,但充满希望

IF 3.4 2区 经济学 Q1 REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING
Lisa K. Bates
{"title":"累了,但充满希望","authors":"Lisa K. Bates","doi":"10.1080/14649357.2021.2003102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Planning scholarship and practice from the vantage point of Portland, Oregon in the past year and a half has left me wishing for a theoretical classification well beyond ‘wicked’. The Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated every persistent problem with racial disparities, economic inequality, and housing instability to the point where the word crisis is inadequate. It has revealed how badly hollowed-out our public institutions are, as workers from closed industries wait months for unemployment insurance payments due to outdated software and insufficient staffing (Rogoway, 2020), with state agencies relying on contractors to create the IT and finance systems to disburse emergency rent relief before the hundreds of evictions filed each week proceed to judgment (Biggars, 2021). Coming to the end of summer 2021, we returned to coronavirus restrictions due to the surging Delta variant and watched tent cities appear across Portland as shelters and services for people experiencing houselessness were overtaxed. We are entering a city budget cycle in which the Portland Police Bureau, having experienced a budget freeze in 2020 for the first time in decades, will seek more resources and positions despite over one hundred days of protest and a U.S. Department of Justice finding of ongoing civil rights violations and a need for continued federal oversight. The political environment for progressive planning – for any planning, really – has become toxic: from a national breakdown in democratic functioning; to a state legislature breached by right-wing rioters allowed in the building by an elected lawmaker; to a local backlash against social justice movements by growth machine-gunning developers (Carpenter, 2021). Among my colleagues and comrades – community-based researchers in urban planning; professional planners in state and local governments; and practitioners in community-based organizations – it can feel as though we’ve stalled entirely in our work of shifting plans towards environmental sustainability and social equity, towards community-based models for upstream health, towards anti-displacement policies, and towards interventions supporting well-being instead of policing and incarceration. A year ago, I would have taken inspiration in the words of my editorial colleagues in this journal volume – Andy Inch urging planners to care for the future and be part of a progressive recovery (Inch, 2021); and Crystal Legacy’s exhortations to resist power and reimagine planning itself (Legacy, 2021), referring back to Libby Porter’s description of TINA (‘there is no alternative’) planning that traps planners into a position of acquiescence to existing power relations (Porter, 2011). After 19 months of ‘unprecedented events’, however, exhaustion with even the most radical of planning theories has set in. Instead, along with my students – young, emerging practitioners of planning and community development – I have been exploring the creative world of visionary fiction. Author Alexis Pauline Gumbs pushes us to “vision to the end of what we could imagine [in our movements], and be creative there, be expansive there” (Gumbs, 2020). We’ve created stories about futures without national borders, or where land has been re-indigenized, or with a universal basic income. Visionary fiction practices don’t require that we explain how we’ll get there, at least not just yet. They allow us to exit a reactive present to become more clear about the world we’re aiming for. The stories in my classes have explored how we might restore ecological balance,","PeriodicalId":47693,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory & Practice","volume":"22 1","pages":"663 - 667"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tired, But Hopeful\",\"authors\":\"Lisa K. Bates\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14649357.2021.2003102\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Planning scholarship and practice from the vantage point of Portland, Oregon in the past year and a half has left me wishing for a theoretical classification well beyond ‘wicked’. The Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated every persistent problem with racial disparities, economic inequality, and housing instability to the point where the word crisis is inadequate. It has revealed how badly hollowed-out our public institutions are, as workers from closed industries wait months for unemployment insurance payments due to outdated software and insufficient staffing (Rogoway, 2020), with state agencies relying on contractors to create the IT and finance systems to disburse emergency rent relief before the hundreds of evictions filed each week proceed to judgment (Biggars, 2021). Coming to the end of summer 2021, we returned to coronavirus restrictions due to the surging Delta variant and watched tent cities appear across Portland as shelters and services for people experiencing houselessness were overtaxed. We are entering a city budget cycle in which the Portland Police Bureau, having experienced a budget freeze in 2020 for the first time in decades, will seek more resources and positions despite over one hundred days of protest and a U.S. Department of Justice finding of ongoing civil rights violations and a need for continued federal oversight. The political environment for progressive planning – for any planning, really – has become toxic: from a national breakdown in democratic functioning; to a state legislature breached by right-wing rioters allowed in the building by an elected lawmaker; to a local backlash against social justice movements by growth machine-gunning developers (Carpenter, 2021). Among my colleagues and comrades – community-based researchers in urban planning; professional planners in state and local governments; and practitioners in community-based organizations – it can feel as though we’ve stalled entirely in our work of shifting plans towards environmental sustainability and social equity, towards community-based models for upstream health, towards anti-displacement policies, and towards interventions supporting well-being instead of policing and incarceration. A year ago, I would have taken inspiration in the words of my editorial colleagues in this journal volume – Andy Inch urging planners to care for the future and be part of a progressive recovery (Inch, 2021); and Crystal Legacy’s exhortations to resist power and reimagine planning itself (Legacy, 2021), referring back to Libby Porter’s description of TINA (‘there is no alternative’) planning that traps planners into a position of acquiescence to existing power relations (Porter, 2011). After 19 months of ‘unprecedented events’, however, exhaustion with even the most radical of planning theories has set in. Instead, along with my students – young, emerging practitioners of planning and community development – I have been exploring the creative world of visionary fiction. Author Alexis Pauline Gumbs pushes us to “vision to the end of what we could imagine [in our movements], and be creative there, be expansive there” (Gumbs, 2020). We’ve created stories about futures without national borders, or where land has been re-indigenized, or with a universal basic income. Visionary fiction practices don’t require that we explain how we’ll get there, at least not just yet. They allow us to exit a reactive present to become more clear about the world we’re aiming for. The stories in my classes have explored how we might restore ecological balance,\",\"PeriodicalId\":47693,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Planning Theory & Practice\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"663 - 667\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Planning Theory & Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2021.2003102\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Planning Theory & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2021.2003102","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在过去的一年半里,从俄勒冈州波特兰市的有利位置规划学术和实践,让我希望有一个远远超出“邪恶”的理论分类。新冠肺炎疫情加剧了种族差异、经济不平等和住房不稳定等所有持续存在的问题,甚至到了危机这个词不够用的地步。它揭示了我们的公共机构是多么严重的空心化,因为来自封闭行业的工人由于软件过时和人手不足而等待失业保险金数月(Rogoway,2020),在每周提交的数百起驱逐案进入判决之前,国家机构依靠承包商创建IT和财务系统来支付紧急租金减免(Biggars,2021)。2021年夏末,由于德尔塔变异毒株的激增,我们又回到了冠状病毒限制措施,并看到波特兰各地出现了帐篷城,因为无家可归者的避难所和服务负担过重。我们正进入一个城市预算周期,波特兰警察局在2020年经历了几十年来的首次预算冻结,尽管经历了100多天的抗议,美国司法部发现正在发生的侵犯公民权利行为,需要继续进行联邦监督,但该局仍将寻求更多的资源和职位。进步规划的政治环境——实际上,对于任何规划来说——都已经变得有毒:民主运作的国家崩溃;一名当选议员允许右翼暴徒进入州议会;当地对增长机器射击开发商的社会正义运动的强烈反对(Carpenter,2021)。在我的同事和同志中——以社区为基础的城市规划研究人员;州和地方政府的专业规划师;以及社区组织的从业者——在将计划转向环境可持续性和社会公平、上游健康的社区模式、反流离失所政策以及支持福祉而非治安和监禁的干预措施方面,我们的工作可能会感到完全停滞。一年前,我会从我的编辑同事在这本杂志上的话中获得灵感——Andy Inch敦促规划者关心未来,成为渐进复苏的一部分(Inch,2021);以及Crystal Legacy呼吁抵制权力并重新构想规划本身(Legacy,2021),指的是Libby Porter对TINA(“别无选择”)规划的描述,该规划将规划者困在默许现有权力关系的位置(Porter,2011)。然而,在经历了19个月的“前所未有的事件”后,即使是最激进的规划理论也让我疲惫不堪。相反,我和我的学生们——规划和社区发展的年轻新兴从业者——一起探索着富有远见的小说的创意世界。作家Alexis Pauline Gumbs将我们推向“我们(在运动中)所能想象的愿景的尽头,在那里发挥创造力,在那里扩张”(Gumbs,2020)。我们创造了关于没有国界的未来,或者土地被重新土著化,或者全民基本收入的故事。幻想小说的实践并不要求我们解释我们将如何到达那里,至少现在还不是。它们让我们能够离开被动的当下,更加清楚地了解我们的目标世界。我课堂上的故事探讨了我们如何恢复生态平衡,
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Tired, But Hopeful
Planning scholarship and practice from the vantage point of Portland, Oregon in the past year and a half has left me wishing for a theoretical classification well beyond ‘wicked’. The Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated every persistent problem with racial disparities, economic inequality, and housing instability to the point where the word crisis is inadequate. It has revealed how badly hollowed-out our public institutions are, as workers from closed industries wait months for unemployment insurance payments due to outdated software and insufficient staffing (Rogoway, 2020), with state agencies relying on contractors to create the IT and finance systems to disburse emergency rent relief before the hundreds of evictions filed each week proceed to judgment (Biggars, 2021). Coming to the end of summer 2021, we returned to coronavirus restrictions due to the surging Delta variant and watched tent cities appear across Portland as shelters and services for people experiencing houselessness were overtaxed. We are entering a city budget cycle in which the Portland Police Bureau, having experienced a budget freeze in 2020 for the first time in decades, will seek more resources and positions despite over one hundred days of protest and a U.S. Department of Justice finding of ongoing civil rights violations and a need for continued federal oversight. The political environment for progressive planning – for any planning, really – has become toxic: from a national breakdown in democratic functioning; to a state legislature breached by right-wing rioters allowed in the building by an elected lawmaker; to a local backlash against social justice movements by growth machine-gunning developers (Carpenter, 2021). Among my colleagues and comrades – community-based researchers in urban planning; professional planners in state and local governments; and practitioners in community-based organizations – it can feel as though we’ve stalled entirely in our work of shifting plans towards environmental sustainability and social equity, towards community-based models for upstream health, towards anti-displacement policies, and towards interventions supporting well-being instead of policing and incarceration. A year ago, I would have taken inspiration in the words of my editorial colleagues in this journal volume – Andy Inch urging planners to care for the future and be part of a progressive recovery (Inch, 2021); and Crystal Legacy’s exhortations to resist power and reimagine planning itself (Legacy, 2021), referring back to Libby Porter’s description of TINA (‘there is no alternative’) planning that traps planners into a position of acquiescence to existing power relations (Porter, 2011). After 19 months of ‘unprecedented events’, however, exhaustion with even the most radical of planning theories has set in. Instead, along with my students – young, emerging practitioners of planning and community development – I have been exploring the creative world of visionary fiction. Author Alexis Pauline Gumbs pushes us to “vision to the end of what we could imagine [in our movements], and be creative there, be expansive there” (Gumbs, 2020). We’ve created stories about futures without national borders, or where land has been re-indigenized, or with a universal basic income. Visionary fiction practices don’t require that we explain how we’ll get there, at least not just yet. They allow us to exit a reactive present to become more clear about the world we’re aiming for. The stories in my classes have explored how we might restore ecological balance,
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
5.10%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Planning Theory & Practice provides an international focus for the development of theory and practice in spatial planning and a forum to promote the policy dimensions of space and place. Published four times a year in conjunction with the Royal Town Planning Institute, London, it publishes original articles and review papers from both academics and practitioners with the aim of encouraging more effective, two-way communication between theory and practice. The Editors invite robustly researched papers which raise issues at the leading edge of planning theory and practice, and welcome papers on controversial subjects. Contributors in the early stages of their academic careers are encouraged, as are rejoinders to items previously published.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信