Urban Studies

Why are you two interested in this topic?
Hess: We explore two phenomenon in significant detail that have characterized the decline and ‘de-gaying’ of LGBTQ+ neighborhoods since 2000: (1) gentrification, which has raised property values and replaced longtime LGBTQ+ residents with non-LGTBQ+ residents, often in condominiums, and (2) friction between generational cohorts, characterized by the different perspectives of baby boomer ‘pioneers’ of gayborhoods who claimed disused urban space and renovated buildings and established communities, versus today’s generation of LGBTQ+ millennials who prefer broad inclusivity over the segregation of sexual minorities and who choose ‘gay-friendly’ coffeehouses over gay bars.

Bitterman: This reflects the struggle for (physical and social) space in gay neighborhoods, which is often borne out in the absence of reliable data about how LGBTQ+ individuals live and why they chose (or do not chose) to live in various communities.

Were there surprising findings in your research?
Bitterman: We arrive at the compelling argument that gayborhoods are currently at a plateau in their spatial and temporal evolution, and there are various trajectories for the future form (or ‘afterlife’, as the book’s title suggests) of LGBTQ+ urban spaces. We project the future form of gayborhoods, drawing on available U.S. census data showing a dispersion of same-sex couples from traditional gay enclaves to other districts across metropolitan areas. Through this analysis, we imagine various types of decentralized (but no less substantial) residential nodes for future settlement of LGBTQ+ residents, especially among more affluent baby boomer and Generation X white gay men and lesbian women, while less affluent LGBTQ+ individuals may find “strength in numbers” by remaining in or near established LGBTQ+ neighborhoods.

Hess: Perhaps unsurprisingly, we also reach a relatively straightforward conclusion: gay neighborhoods matter to everyone (not just LGBTQ+ people) and are important—both historically and currently—to the proper functioning of contemporary urban culture. In this way, gay neighborhoods support the health and well-being of both LGBTQ+ individuals as well as mainstream society. The book provides three chapters of examples about how this is so.

What will interest readers about the topic of LGBTQ+ neighborhoods?
Bitterman: Our book aims to address a significant gap in scholarship and inform community conversations. As gay neighborhoods have reached a generational plateau, now is a critical time to capture the current state of importance and challenges vis-a-vis the history of and potential future for gay neighborhoods. 

Hess: In concluding the book, we use the remarkable events of 2020 to argue that far from signaling the demise of LGBTQ+ spaces, the COVID-19 pandemic (like the HIV/AIDS pandemic before it) demonstrates the enduring appeal provided by neighborhoods as places of physical proximity. Quarantine measures and the 'new normal' of technologically-mediated meetings certainly suggest that the economic viability of gayborhoods may be flattened, but perhaps hearts will grow fonder after an enforced absence, leading to a second wave of place attachment and localized activism.

Bitterman: Elevating lessons learned from the HIV/AIDS pandemic and the urban pioneers who used gay neighborhoods as a formative organizing space to fight disease, as applied to the continued fight against AIDS and now COVID in terms of organizing, increasing awareness and consciousness about disease, and decreasing stigma related to disease.

The movement from distinctly clustered communities of gay people to a more integrated settings is perhaps common knowledge. So, what else is there to be solved?
Hess: We agree! Initially, this was our exact reason for undertaking the research to support this book—to better understand the relevance of gayborhoods given societal changes in the last two decades. We have observed changes and decline in gayborhoods during our travels, and we naturally wanted to question “why” this appeared to be occurring. However, upon closer inspection, we found the reasons for settlement, neighborhood choice, and formative community are influenced—strongly—by factors related to economics, race, opportunity, mental health, and social support structures. 

Bitterman: Surprisingly, we uncovered that much remains to be addressed, legitimized, recorded, and researched. In this manner, we believe, we have only begun to scratch the surface of what could prove to be a much broader and long-lived endeavor, especially considering up to 75 percent of the LGBTQ+ world remains (by legal standards) in the closet.

What does Open Access designation mean for the book The Life and Afterlife of Gay Neighborhoods?
Hess: By designating this as an Open Access book, we make the research available to everyone—not just an elite group of academics affiliated with large universities. This is significant, since more than half the LGBTQ+ world—nearly the entire “global south” (including all of Africa), most Asian countries including China, Russia, and countries through Central and Eastern Europe and the Middle East—live in oppressive societies with few rights and dangerous conditions for LGBTQ+ individuals. Our scholarly efforts can help to shift the collective conversation for LGBTQ+ individuals and researchers as we remain mindful that while certain places may have advanced LGBTQ+ acceptance over the last 75 years, other places have not.
Bitterman: By making this book Open Access, we ensure two main objectives: (a) We document the fact that LGBTQ+ individuals and couples are not—in most places in the world—counted in large surveys and national censuses. (b) We ensure for a future generation that the current state of affairs is documented as an important milestone in the challenging history of the struggle for LGBTQ+ rights, equality, and freedoms.

Three images attached courtesy of the authors, depicting gay neighborhoods in Chicago (USA), Toronto (Canada), and Manchester (UK)

Alex Bitterman is Professor of Architecture and Design at Alfred State College, State University of New York. Daniel B. Hess is Professor and Chairperson in the Department of Urban Regional Planning at the University at Buffalo, State University of New York.

"The important role of public space during the pandemic should not be ignored. In its most traditional form – that of parks and streets – public space provided refuge. People exercised in parks to strengthen their body and have the opportunity to safely ventured to the world outside their homes. Parks also provided the opportunity to encounter others and build an understanding of a particularly challenging and novel situation. The radius of activity outside the home made close-by parks in New York City a site for community building based on a culture of unity. Public space provided the necessary outlet to find support through safely distant conversations and physical activity. A pre-pandemic book, The Urban Library also demonstrates the importance of public space and community building in the most recent trend of urban development and library design. 

Public libraries are public spaces as well. Libraries have historically contributed to the accumulation and dissemination of knowledge and information. From the libraries of antiquity designed for elites to those built during industrialization to provide universal access, public libraries more recently have perfected the art of community building translated in the shape of space to facilitate library design extending into a vibrant city.

As anchor institutions within a creative city branding to attract the creative class, residents and tourists alike, public libraries have filled in the gap generated by a retrenched state to offer a myriad of resources to the communities they serve, broadly understood. In a more recent turn, as the architectural gems of their iconic buildings, public libraries also welcome tourists.

The democratic values of inclusivity and universal access is maintained in the traditional definition of public libraries. Extending into the publicness that they support by focusing on programming, public libraries offer cultural events and skill development in resourceful ways. They are in tune with the needs of their specific immediate communities included in the book: Seattle, Salt Lake City and New York City in the United States, Medellín, Colombia in Latin America, Halifax, Nova Scotia in Canada and Alexandria in Alexandria, Egypt. The global trend in public library design is manifested in all these public libraries. This is a testament to the power of democratic values and inclusive urban design. As part of the creative city branding, the specific qualities of the cities in which they are located are also manifested in the network of cultural institutions to which public libraries are an important component. Open dialogue, exchange of ideas, learning and understanding are some of the qualities that inclusive public libraries seek to support in their mission to benefit communities.

As anchor institutions, public libraries serve to strengthen cities’ competitiveness to attract a global professional class of “creatives,” tourists, and investors. City indexes have become a generalized tool to rank cities nationally and regionally, likely to develop into tools to rank places according to diversity, business environment and sustainability, among other quality of life indicators that highlight the desirability of cities at a global scale. 

Public libraries have adapted to changing historical and economic conditions becoming adaptable and flexible in creative ways. As cultural urban institutions committed to democratic values, public libraries are socially and spatially inclusive providing universal access to their resources. Public libraries have also adapted to changing technology, a productive shift during the pandemic as many industries transitioned to remote access. Public libraries championed programming through virtual platforms in providing access to their collections and cultural events. Public libraries possess a long-standing tradition of support to community building in their physical and virtual spaces. Post-pandemic cities will be fertile ground for public libraries continued creative growth with an established record of community building."

Dr. Julia Nevárez' research focuses on urban issues, urban development, public space, technoculture, and climate change. Her interdisciplinary conceptual analysis applied to the complexity of living in cities is evident in her written work with chapters in books about public space and globalization in Central Park; large video screens, public space and governmentality in Times Square; and public space and gentrification in Harlem, among others. The last is part of the book she edited entitled: On Global Grounds: Urban Change and Globalization. On Global Grounds examined the emergent globalization processes of the early 2000s in different cities around the world. More recently she has contributed with articles to the digital magazine UrbanNext. Her interest in theory as a way of conceptualizing contemporary urban space has focused on issues such as global urbanization, the networked society, critique of the global city, social justice and climate change. In 2018 she published the book Governing Disaster in Urban Environments: Climate Change Preparation and Adaption after Hurricane Sandy. She obtained her Ph.D. in Environmental Psychology, was an Executive Board Member of the Urban Affairs Association and Sociology Coordinator at Kean University where she currently teaches.

... We have long known about the health and wellbeing benefits of urban green spaces – and Covid-19 certainly demonstrated how urban green spaces are an essential service. So why are there still longstanding problems in accessing, funding and managing our parks and green spaces? A new book (published by Springer), which I edited with Dr Julian Dobson at Sheffield Hallam University, aims to answer this question.

Our new book Naturally Challenged: Contested Perceptions and Practices in Urban Green Spaces sheds light on why the health and wellbeing benefits of urban green spaces jar with the asset management approaches that view public green spaces as liabilities. With contributions from international green space management experts, the book demonstrates that it depends on how the wellbeing benefits of urban nature are analysed and valued.

Too often, urban nature is not valued highly enough for local and national decision-makers to invest significant funding. There tends to be a ‘business as usual’ approach to dealing with green spaces which are underpinned by logics of ‘we’ve done this because we’ve always done this’ or ‘that couldn’t work here’ without any exploration of the alternatives.

Such logics mean that decision-makers don’t meaningfully prioritise urban green spaces, and that is often attributed to (or blamed on) others. “It’s the public who aren’t interested in the outdoors”. “It’s the housing developers who can’t provide too much green space because it makes a development unviable”. “It’s because of other government departments and their silo mentalities”. “It’s because academics don’t provide the right evidence”.

These are all examples of ‘logics of inaction’ that are examined in the book and their implications are considered by experts from the UK, Italy and New Zealand. Knowing these logics of inaction exist means we can challenge national policymakers to secure funding for our green spaces in life beyond the pandemic."

Dr. Nicola Dempsey, Senior Lecturer in Landscape Planning, Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Sheffield, UK

In case there’s any doubt about the evidence, earlier this year a team at Sheffield Hallam University produced a report, Space to Thrive, which reviewed nearly 400 recent academic papers on the social benefits of urban parks. As well as supporting physical and mental health, which you’d expect, parks also play an important community role, bringing people together and enabling people to feel more involved in society.

But we also know that parks and green spaces are underfunded. A parliamentary inquiry three years ago found they were at a ‘tipping point’ of decline in England. So why are they considered less important than roads (£27.4bn investment over five years in England), private houses (£3.8bn diverted to the better-off through the suspension of stamp duty in 2020-21), or prisons (£2.5bn to create an extra 10,000 prison places)?

‘We want to invest, but we can’t’

It’s not as if local councils, which are responsible for most urban parks and many other green spaces, think parks are unimportant. But between 2010 and 2017/18 central government funding for English local authorities fell by 49.1% in real terms, and spending power (taking locally raised resources into account) fell by 28.6%. There is no statutory duty for councils to create or maintain parks.

Even this year, when the importance of parks has been spotlighted during the Covid-19 lockdown because they were among the very few public places people could use, local authorities are still discussing how they can save more money from parks budgets. 

And even when there is a chance to invest, council officers often feel disempowered and unable to make the case. In recent research in Sheffield we found a series of ‘logics of inaction’, justifiable reasons for not making the improvements council staff knew would be helpful. 

Unsurprisingly, the main logic was a financial one – people believed they would not be able to justify investment compared with actions generating a perceived immediate economic benefit, like mending roads, or where there was a legal duty attached, such as social services. But we also found people were institutionally disempowered: ten years of austerity have instilled a ‘finance says no’ culture within local government. 

Evidence-seeking as myth and ceremony

A common expression of this culture of disempowerment is to seek more evidence to justify investment, but then to argue that the evidence is insufficient. One parks professional we interviewed put it like this: 

‘…what we need to do is be better and savvier at using statistics, using the work of yourself and research in the city to say, Parks and Countryside have got so much x, it provides y, the benefits are pounds and economic savings.’

But in further discussions, another made the revealing comment that ‘I don’t even try anymore’. In a new book published by Springer Nature, I and my co-editor Nicola Dempsey argue that evidence-seeking has become an excuse for kicking the can down the road, deferring commitment on the basis that evidence is still not good enough.

In Naturally Challenged: Contested perceptions and practices in urban green spaces, we investigate the ‘logics of inaction’ affecting suggested investments. Drawing on John W Meyer and Brian Rowan’s classic study in organisational theory showing how organisational structure is often a result of ‘myth and ceremony’ which services the purpose of legitimising activities, we consider evidence-seeking through the same lens. 

While organisations engage actively in the search for appropriate evidence, the evidence legitimises a process of decision-making that does not require evidence to be acted upon. Evidence-seeking becomes a justificatory activity. We argue:

‘The myth of evidence-based policy … enables proposals to be rejected on the basis of insufficient evidence, effectively masking the politics of decision-making. A concern with “what works” and “good practice” provides an appearance of logical inevitability for what is actually a political choice.’

Where does that leave the case for investing in parks and green spaces? In our view, the evidence is good enough: it is the consequent action that has failed.

We are on the brink of a spending review that will set priorities in the UK for half a decade or more. In the run-up to that review, professionals, academics and campaigners are amassing the evidence and making the case for serious and significant investment in green space. The National Trust, for example, says we need a £5.5bn fund to improve green spaces and create new ones. 

If the spending review does not deliver, it won’t be for lack of evidence. It will be a political choice. And if the political choice is for prisons rather than parks, we should ask what that tells us about our priorities."

Dr. Julian Dobson, Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University, UK

This volume brings the science of urban transformation together with practices of professionals who govern and manage our social, ecological and technological systems to design processes by which cities may achieve resilient urban futures in the face of climate change."

Dr Zoé Hamstead, Assistant Professor of Environmental Planning and Founding Director of the Community Resilience Lab at the University of Buffalo's School of Architecture and Planning, Buffalo, USA.