Postindustrial Futures and the Edge of the Frontier

IF 0.8 3区 社会学 Q3 ANTHROPOLOGY Anthropological Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.1353/anq.2022.0016
C. Ahmann
{"title":"Postindustrial Futures and the Edge of the Frontier","authors":"C. Ahmann","doi":"10.1353/anq.2022.0016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:Port Covington is a 260-acre development underway in South Baltimore City, featuring a multibillion-dollar campus for the popular sportswear brand Under Armour. It promises to transform a \"vacant\" and degraded former railyard into a \"city within a city\" and to catalyze Baltimore's comeback. It also promises to cost a lot. In 2016, after tense public debate, developers secured a $660 million tax increment financing (TIF) deal to begin work, committing taxpayers to decades of debt on the company's behalf. Eligibility for that deal hinged on making the site's industrial history visible as an obstacle to profit. The dominant spatial tropes that scholars use to understand dispossession make it hard to appreciate this instrumentalization of the past, as well as developers' savvy appeals to industrial nostalgia. In this article, I pay particular attention to the blind spots of the frontier concept. Arguments that foreground frontier motifs emphasize erasure as a primary technique of dispossession: by covering up past and present lifeways, \"urban pioneers\" legitimate land seizure as benign discovery. But in Port Covington's case, developers dramatized a history of municipal neglect. Far from concealed, this history became a key ingredient in developers' claims to the land and a mechanism structuring their access to financial options. In the process of exploring these dynamics, I query whether frontier concepts may reach the limits of their usefulness in the postindustrial city. Here, land's not-so-distant past provides both the template for development dreams and the justification for dispossession by private actors who (the story goes) are best equipped to manage reconstruction. Besides TIF, the range of development incentives available for improving \"blighted\" spaces—and activists' studied responses to those incentives—suggest that postindustrial futures are rarely conceived on a blank slate. Instead, historicity drives debates about who the city is for and what it can become.","PeriodicalId":51536,"journal":{"name":"Anthropological Quarterly","volume":"95 1","pages":"277 - 309"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anthropological Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/anq.2022.0016","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT:Port Covington is a 260-acre development underway in South Baltimore City, featuring a multibillion-dollar campus for the popular sportswear brand Under Armour. It promises to transform a "vacant" and degraded former railyard into a "city within a city" and to catalyze Baltimore's comeback. It also promises to cost a lot. In 2016, after tense public debate, developers secured a $660 million tax increment financing (TIF) deal to begin work, committing taxpayers to decades of debt on the company's behalf. Eligibility for that deal hinged on making the site's industrial history visible as an obstacle to profit. The dominant spatial tropes that scholars use to understand dispossession make it hard to appreciate this instrumentalization of the past, as well as developers' savvy appeals to industrial nostalgia. In this article, I pay particular attention to the blind spots of the frontier concept. Arguments that foreground frontier motifs emphasize erasure as a primary technique of dispossession: by covering up past and present lifeways, "urban pioneers" legitimate land seizure as benign discovery. But in Port Covington's case, developers dramatized a history of municipal neglect. Far from concealed, this history became a key ingredient in developers' claims to the land and a mechanism structuring their access to financial options. In the process of exploring these dynamics, I query whether frontier concepts may reach the limits of their usefulness in the postindustrial city. Here, land's not-so-distant past provides both the template for development dreams and the justification for dispossession by private actors who (the story goes) are best equipped to manage reconstruction. Besides TIF, the range of development incentives available for improving "blighted" spaces—and activists' studied responses to those incentives—suggest that postindustrial futures are rarely conceived on a blank slate. Instead, historicity drives debates about who the city is for and what it can become.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
后工业时代的未来与前沿
摘要:科温顿港(Port Covington)是位于巴尔的摩市南部的一个占地260英亩的开发项目,拥有价值数十亿美元的运动服装品牌Under Armour园区。它承诺将一个“空置”和退化的前铁路调车场改造成“城中城”,并促进巴尔的摩的复兴。它还承诺要花很多钱。2016年,在紧张的公开辩论之后,开发商获得了6.6亿美元的增税融资(TIF)协议,开始工作,让纳税人代表公司承担了数十年的债务。这笔交易的资格取决于能否将该网站的工业历史视为利润的障碍。学者们用来理解剥夺的主要空间比喻使人们很难理解这种对过去的工具化,以及开发商对工业怀旧的精明吸引力。在这篇文章中,我特别关注前沿概念的盲点。有观点认为,前景前沿主题强调擦除是剥夺土地的主要技术:通过掩盖过去和现在的生活方式,“城市先驱”将合法的土地征用视为良性发现。但在科温顿港的案例中,开发商将市政忽视的历史戏剧化了。这段历史非但没有被掩盖,反而成为开发商对土地所有权的关键因素,成为他们获得金融选择的机制。在探索这些动态的过程中,我质疑前沿概念在后工业化城市中是否达到了其有用性的极限。在这里,土地不那么遥远的过去为发展梦想提供了模板,也为私人行为者剥夺土地提供了理由,而私人行为者(据说)最有能力管理重建。除了TIF之外,可用于改善“破败”空间的一系列发展激励措施——以及活动家们对这些激励措施的研究反应——表明后工业时代的未来很少是在一张白纸上设想的。相反,历史性推动了关于这座城市是为谁服务以及它能成为什么样的城市的辩论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Since 1921, Anthropological Quarterly has published scholarly articles, review articles, book reviews, and lists of recently published books in all areas of sociocultural anthropology. Its goal is the rapid dissemination of articles that blend precision with humanism, and scrupulous analysis with meticulous description.
期刊最新文献
The Copy Generic: How the Nonspecific Makes our Social Worlds by Scott MacLochlainn (review) Whetū Mārama/Bright Star dir Toby Mills and Aileen O’Sullivan (review) Screen Media, Technological Innovation and the State in Nigeria Language In Culture: Lectures on the Social Semiotics of Language by Michael Silverstein (review) Crazy, Stupid, Lying, Traitors: Eritrean Politics and Extreme Speech Online
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1