Placemaking is a vaguely defined yet ubiquitous activity of urban development. It comprises a professional field encompassing experts, technical discourses, canonical texts, and even academic programs. This article suggests that placemaking’s popularity signals the growing complexity of the community development field and the political coalitions required for housing and neighborhood development in U.S. cities. Using Detroit as a case study, I examine how two distinct development coalitions downtown and in a residential neighborhood coalesced around different placemaking approaches, conceptualized as an economic development versus community development frame. The result of both efforts is similar: a narrow view of development prevailed, channeling placemaking processes into well-known urban development strategies. The urge to involve the community in decision-making comes at a time when issues of urban inequality have gained prominence in public discourse. Yet, city officials, non- and for-profit developers, community advocates, and “engagement professionals” operate within a state and federal competitive grant system that prioritizes lower-income neighborhoods located near stronger housing and land markets, raising concerns around displacement. Placemaking effectively minimizes this tension by symbolically elevating the local histories and affective ties of longtime residents while promoting market-aligned development.
Jacob Lederman (Tue,) studied this question.