One of the most interesting things about the meltdown around this piece w/in urbanist circles was seeing how many different ways those folks interpreted Alissa's interpretation of the work of mob. justice advocates to justify not having to listen to us. https://www.curbed.com/2020/5/20/21263319/coronavirus-future-city-urban-covid-19

Some of that is due to having complex arguments rooted in deep work around structural injustice flattened and repackaged in a way that leaves it open to being strawmanned and torn apart and labeled finger-wagging.

This is one of those bits that sparked a lot of ire, and I can see why...

It's not rooted deeply enough in the conversations that a lot of us have been having for years around how to make streets more accessible for all and was subsequently able to be interpreted as an anti-open streets position or one that suggests PoC don't care about open streets.

...which is something that has been used to dismiss most of us for years but especially during the past couple of months.

For me, so much of what I do is aimed at helping illuminate the barriers that keep people in disenfranchised communities from being able to take access to their streets for granted, e.g.: https://la.streetsblog.org/2018/05/01/i-cant-go-everywhere-that-i-thought-i-could-go-when-black-and-brown-cyclists-need-safety-from-more-than-traffic/

I want my bike-riding friend Slimm (above) to be able to ride everywhere. To be able to ride alone (instead of in a group to keep from getting jumped). To be able to walk down the street in something other than his bike vest (so he won't keep getting harassed by LAPD)...

He's one of so many youth whose mobility is constrained by the structural violence imposed upon communities like South Central.

If you open his street and tell him it's to his benefit but he still can't use it, what's really been accomplished?

Why is taking into consideration the multiple barriers to mobility considered so everyone can ride their bikes so antithetical to urbanism? To safe streets?

[I know the answers that I've been blasted with for years, so I don't really need y'all to tell me, lol.]

I just find it interesting that we're hearing that we can't listen to concerns about folks who can't take access to their streets for granted because it is an emergency.

The same has been said in the housing debates: It's a crisis! We just need to build!

And we do need to build housing, bike infrastructure, etc. But again, if we're doing it in a way that not only fails to ensure everyone can benefit from that future city but also perpetuates structural harms and pushes folks further to the margins, what have we accomplished?

Who have we benefited?

Be well.