170 THE JUST CITY CONCLUSION: TOWARD THE JUST CITY 171

reliance on market processes. The urban political movements that hadgrown during the latter part of the 1960s and into the 1970s faded withthe conservative onslaught."

Within this set of forces urban planning and policy became increasinglyoriented toward a single-minded focus on encouraging growth throughthe vehicle of public-private partnerships, as chronicled in the three casestudies presented here. Although these are not "ordinary cities" in thesense described by Jennifer Robinson (2006)—that is, they are certainlydifferent from cities in the developing world and even from most in theirown countries in their economic importance and global connectedness—the kinds of projects formulated and the conflicts around them are quitetypical. The extent of variation among the three cases points to the extentthat, within the existing structure of global forces and national politics,we can hope for a more just city.

Principles to Guide Planning and PolicyThe assertion that meaningful justice is attainable in cities caught withinthe contemporary system of global capitalism provokes two possible re-sponses: (1) It is impossible to work within this system and achieve amodicum of justice. (2) The pressure for nonreformist reforms can leadto incremental changes in the system that place it on a path toward jus-tice. Harvey (2009, 46), who takes the first position, contends that "act-ing within the existing capitalist regime of rights and freedoms... [canonly result in] mitigating the worst outcomes at the margins of an unjustsystem." My own view is that sufficient leeway exists that reform backedby political mobilization can produce significant change. The two viewsare not totally irreconcilable—demands expressed by groups such asthe Right to the City Alliance and the Los Angeles Alliance for a NewEconomy and in antiglobalization demonstrations do represent effortsto reconstitute the system of global capitalism in ways that are less thantotally revolutionary. Harvey (2009, 48-49) himself names participatory

8. For an overview of the factors at work post-1975, see Caslells's (2000a, 2000b, 2004)magisterial trilogy, The Information Age: Society, Economy, Culture. It is possible to list hun-dreds, if not thousands, of books and articles addressing the themes briefly recapitulated inthis section. I do not elaborate on them here, since I can add little that is new and the causes ofpresent injustice are not the principal concern of this book.

budgeting as a collective form of governance that has, in fact, emergedwithin the context of capitalism. At the same time he argues that "a JustCity has to be about fierce conflict all of the time" (2009, 47). One won-ders, though, whether democratic participation is compatible with fierceconflict, and whether most people wish to live in a state of constant battle.Harvey (2009, 45) quotes the sociologist Robert Park as calling the cityhumanity's most successful attempt to model the world "after his heart'sdesire." But is unending fierce conflict truly the heart's desire of mostpeople? My objective has been to lay out principles that can move citiescloser to justice, which will undoubtedly involve their proponents in con-flicts not easily settled, but which do not depend on revolutionary changefor their realization.

An analysis of the development of universal health provision in WesternEurope contends that the varying forms it has taken are the consequenceof path dependency: "Each [national system] has taken a drastically dif-ferent form, and the reason has rarely been ideology. Rather each countryhas built on its own history, however imperfect, unusual, and untidy"(Gawande 2009, 30). We could expect that the form of governmental in-tervention and nonprofit activity in the provision of housing and localeconomic development would similarly vary according to city and coun-try and their historic path of development. Nonetheless, we can imaginea movement toward a common goal of increasing equity in relation tohousing, economic development, and access to public space. The fol-lowing section enumerates types of policies that are conducive to socialjustice in cities without spelling out the particular institutional forms orlegislative mandates by which they would be accomplished.

Naming specific policies derived from the general criteria definingurban justice undoubtedly goes beyond what would be acceptable to rigor-ous deontological philosophers.9 The list is more context-dependent andmuch more detailed than Nussbaum's presentation of capabilities.10 It as-sumes societies with a preexisting commitment to democratic-egalitariannorms as well as a history of applying such norms, albeit through practicethat may fall well short of the ideal. The contents of my list apply only

9. Nussbaum (2000, 78) does specify certain requisites in her list of capabilities that in-volve public policy, including adequate shelter, adequate education, and protection againstdiscrimination.

10. Fincher and Iveson (2008,214) provide a similar, but much shorter list under the cate-gories "planning for redistribution"; "planning for recognition"; and "planning for encounter."

172 THE JUST CITY

to planning and policies conducted at the local level; although nationalpolicy severely constrains or enables local efforts to achieve justice, locali-ties still have it within their power to make decisions that are more or lessfavorable to justice." The list is as follows:

In furtherance of equity:1. All new housing development should provide units for households

with incomes below the median, either on-site or elsewhere, withthe goal of providing a decent home and suitable living environ-ment for everyone. (One of the most vexing issues in relation tohousing, however, is the extent to which tenant selection shouldlimit access to people likely to be good neighbors. It is an areawhere the criteria of equity and democracy as well as differentways of calculating equity are at odds with each other, and nogeneral rule can apply. Another issue pitting democratic determi-nation against both equity and diversity arises because crises ofhousing availability lead to pressure for building at higher densi-ties. Proposals for densification, however, tend to be met by strongneighborhood opposition, even though, if requirements are inplace for a substantial amount of affordable housing, as has beenthe case under Labour in London, they would enhance diversity aswell as equity, J

2. Housing units developed to be affordable should remain in perpe-tuity in the affordable housing pool or be subject to one-for-onereplacement. (Until recently U.S. law required one-to-one replace-ment of demolished public housing, but this rule was eliminated.)

3. Households or businesses should not be involuntarily relocated forthe purpose of obtaining economic development or communitybalance except in exceptional circumstances. When relocation isneeded for the construction of public facilities, to improve housingquality, or to increase densities so as to accommodate additionalpopulation, adequate compensation requires that the dislocated begiven sufficient means to occupy an equivalent dwelling or busi-ness site, regardless of whether they are renters or owners and in-dependent of the market value of the lost location. Reconstruction

11. The components of a just national urban policy are more complex and will not be dis-cussed here. Markusen and Fainstein (1993) develop the elements of a national urban policyfor the United States.

CONCLUSION; TOWARD THE JUST CITY 173

of neighborhoods should be conducted incrementally so thatinterim space is available in the vicinity for displaced householdswho wish to remain in the same location.

4. Economic development programs should give priority to the in-terests of employees and, where feasible, small businesses, whichgenerally are more locally rooted than large corporations. All newcommercial development should provide space for public use andwhen possible should facilitate the livelihood of independent andcooperatively owned businesses.

5. Megaprojects should be subject to heightened scrutiny, be requiredto provide direct benefits to low-income people in the form ofemployment provisions, public amenities, and a living wage, and,if public subsidy is involved, should include public participation inthe profits. If at all possible, they should be developed incremen-tally and with multiple developers.

6. Fares for intracity transit (but not commuter rail) should be keptvery low. Low-income people are disproportionately reliant onpublic transit. Local government thus has the power to affect in-come distribution through collecting tolls and taxes on automo-biles and designating the proceeds for transit support. Low-incomepeople with no choice but to commute by car should receiverebates.

7. Planners should take an active role in deliberative settings in press-ing for egalitarian solutions and blocking ones that disproportion-ately benefit the already well-off.

The policy directives listed as furthering equity respond to the mostpressing concerns arising from current urban programs in the three citiesdiscussed here. Increasing the supply of affordable housing is the most ur-gent need, but all three, at least until the economic crisis of 2008-9, havebeen engaged instead in promoting megaprojects that provide only lim-ited amounts of low-income housing (Fainstein 2008). Although manyof these projects (e.g., Battery Park City in New York; Stratford City inLondon; Amsterdam's Western Garden Cities) aim to provide new, high-quality housing and include some proportion of low-cost units, theymainly involve transformation of the social composition of the affectedareas and are aimed at higher income groups. Financing issues are, as ofthis writing, stalling the full realization of uncompleted projects for hous-ing and commercial development; only sports facilities (the Yankee, Mets,

174 THE JUST CITY CONCLUSION: TOWARD THE JUST CITY 175

and Jets stadiums in New York and the Olympics venues in London) havecontinued despite the contraction of credit markets. This is in the face ofserious problems of housing availability and affordability in the threecities and an epidemic of mortgage foreclosures (repossessions in U.K.vocabulary) in the United States and the United Kingdom. In the UnitedStates the commitment to enlarging the stock of affordable housing isthe lowest of the three countries, but even the Netherlands has increasedreliance on demand-side subsidies rather than housing construction.

In furtherance of diversity:1. Households should not be required to move for the purpose of ob-

taining diversity, but neither should new communities be built thatfurther segregation.

2. Zoning should not be used for discriminatory ends but rathershould foster inclusion.

3. Boundaries between districts should be porous.4. Ample public space should be widely accessible and varied; where

public spaces are provided by private entities, political speechshould not be prohibited within the property. At the same time,groups with clashing lifestyles should not have to occupy the samelocation.

5. To the extent practical and desired by affected populations, landuses should be mixed.

6. Public authorities should assist groups who have historically suf-fered from discrimination in achieving access to opportunity inhousing, education, and employment.

Kwame Anthony Appiah {2006, xv), who uses the term "cosmopoli-tanism" to express his view of what I have called diversity, identifies twostrands to the concept: (1) we have obligations to others stretching be-yond those to whom we are related by blood or nationality; (2) we takeseriously the value of the lives of others, including taking an interest inthe practices and beliefs that lend them significance (i.e., we give rec-ognition, in the terminology of other philosophers).12 Adherence to thisset of guidelines in respect to diversity does not require that people whocannot get along live next door to each other. Indeed, people should have

12. Ulrich Beck (2006) argues that, in a globalized world, cosmopolitanism is a necessity,reflecting an irreversible process of intermingling.

the right to protect themselves from others who do not respect their wayof life. What is important is that people are not differentiated and ex-cluded according to ascriptive characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, orhomelessness.

In furtherance of democracy:1. Groups that are not able to participate directly in decision-making

processes should be represented by advocates.2. Plans should be developed in consultation with the target popu-

lation if the area is already developed. The existing population,however, should not be the sole arbiter of the future of an area.Citywide considerations must also apply.

3. In planning for as yet uninhabited or sparsely occupied areas,there should be broad consultation that includes representatives ofgroups currently living outside the affected areas.

There need not be an expectation of high levels of participation bypeople who do not wish to take part. The purpose of inclusion in decisionmaking should be to have interests fairly represented, not to value partici-pation in and of itself. If justice is the goal, the requirement of democracyis mainly instrumental—without it, those with less power are likely to betreated badly. Democratic theory regards democracy as a good in itself—ameans by which people educate themselves and reach an understandingof their own interests, as well as an expression of citizenship. My purposeis not to dispute these other aims but rather to limit my discussion to theachievement of the just rather than the good and thus to give less priorityto democracy than to equity.

State and MarketThe guidelines, as well as assuming the context of a liberal-democraticpolitical tradition, reflect societies in which markets have historicallyplayed a dominant role in allocating resources. The policy specificationsdo not call for government takeover of functions such as housing or busi-ness premises. Nevertheless, they do require a considerable increase ingovernment involvement through regulation and some increase in pub-lic ownership. Thus, development of affordable housing could occur viathe governmental, for-profit, and nonprofit sectors, but would dependon generous public subsidy and intervention. Likewise, public space may