The 1-way vs. 2-way streets debate is not the only controversy stirred up by the recent downtown design charrette. Perhaps the bigger controversy, the “elephant” in the discussion, if you will, is the divisive topic of race.
In a city that was home to the second largest slave-trading port in America 150 years ago, it is disheartening, but not terribly surprising, that many of our disagreements and debates in this city still center on race. Have we made progress? Absolutely. Do we still have problems? Without question.
One current problem is evidenced by the current debate regarding the legitimacy of any claims of racial exclusion or under-representation in the charrette process. A brief rundown of the significant players so far:
- The Free Press ran the headline “Sea of Whiteness” to accompany its article on the charrette.
- Mike Sarahan, a controversial city fixture, complained to city council & others about a lack of inclusion.
- Victor Dover, principal designer of the firm running the charrette process, apologized for the lack of inclusivity.
- Mayor Wilder defended the process: “Somebody’s done a lot of work,” he said, “and gotten a lot of people involved.”
- The president of the Jackson Ward Association felt the process was fair for Jackson Ward.
- Several bloggers have chimed in:
- Buttermilk & Molasses acknowledges the failure and calls for everyone to move forward together. “If only others can learn to let go of what was in the past.”
- Haduken.com acknowledges our city’s racist history and also expresses anger at the Free Press. Several comments reveal other Richmonders’ feelings.
- River City Rapids reminds readers that the process isn’t over & there’s still time to get involved. He also provocatively suggests that “the race card is a joker” and has no place in this discussion.
The question that occurs to me as a Richmond culture watcher is, why are there such diverse and passionate feelings about this subject?
Were folks right to point out that the group who’s historically been marginalized was missing?
Were other folks right to say the process was/is open to all and therefore immune to a critique about who was missing at the table (racial group or otherwise)?
In my view, the fact that, by and large, African-Americans didn’t show up at the charrette tells us something about the state of our city.
It tells me that we still have miles to go in order to build a just and inclusive community.
It tells me that there are broken bonds of trust that take a lot of hard, intentional work to heal.
We spent roughly the first 300 years of our history trying in various ways to exclude the voice of Black folks. And yes, slavery is long gone, but its legacy lives on. It was only 30 years ago that Richmond’s city council was convicted by the Supreme Court for trying to annex as many white voters as they could to maintain a white majority.
Folks who’ve lived through that, and raised children in that atmosphere, in my mind have every right to be mistrustful of any political process. The book Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria: a psychologist explains the development of racial identity suggests that one reaction to encounters with racism and prejudice is to seek a group of folks who share and understand your experience of marginalization.
Perhaps in a city that’s experienced so much racism and prejudice folks can’t be blamed for lacking interest in public forums run by unknown leaders (Dover & Kohl), without folks they know and trust buying into the process and urging them to get involved.
That doesn’t mean that Dover Kohl or Venture Richmond are racists.
That doesn’t mean that the results of the charrette are worthless.
But it means to me that we have work to do to heal the many wounds inflicted by years of racism. We need to build multi-racial coalitions for the improvement of our common future as a community.
And I think it’s time we recognize the concerns of an historically oppressed group when they claim that their absence is significant and unfortunate. Recognizing the legitimacy of that claim does not automatically impute racist intentions to the organizers or promoters of the event, but rather is a sign that we still have work to do to heal the wounds of history.
Perhaps those of us who are engaged should ask for meetings with Black leaders and inquire as to why they weren’t present – without laying blame- and what could be done in the future to ensure greater participation from the African-American community.
Perhaps we should ask our Black friends why they didn’t participate, if they did not.
Perhaps we should ask all our friends who didn’t participate why they did not. Most of my White friends had absolutely no interest; it was a minority of any of my friends, regardless of their race, who a) knew about it and b) cared. I guess I say that to warn against “tokenizing” our Black friends and excoriating them for not representing their race.
Let’s use this controversy as a point of learning about the health of our community. Let it make us stronger, not continue to divide us.
One of the positive realities I noticed is that, without exception, everyone who’s publicly commented on this controversy has expressed the desire for racial inclusion. That’s certainly progress. Now let’s talk about how to make it happen.
I’d like to see more dialogue about the legacy of racism in our community, how it affects us and how to overcome it. Race and racism are very much live issues- as seen not only from this issue, but elsewhere in our city, as recently in the comments section of one of our local ‘hoodblogs.
And for the record, I too am annoyed with the Free Press for criticizing without having promoted the event. That’s inexcusable- as long as they’d received a press release, which I hope they did.
I expect my opinion might be controversial – it’s with a certain fear and trembling that I click on the “publish” button, but I nevertheless welcome comments and discussion. I’d simply ask that it you choose to comment, please keep things as civil as possible while discussing this divisive and difficult topic.
July 31, 2007 at 1:00 pm
I agree with your assessment of the race issues, I’m just not sure they were the cause of the unbalanced charrette attendance. They just did a horrible job of promoting the event. If you didn’t listen to WRIR or read blogs you didn’t know about it. I feel like this should have been a nice mailer to everyone living in the city, communicating it with the city churches well in advance, making enough of a deal about it that the MSM picked up on it and just making everyone feel invited. They didn’t make anyone feel invited… but people like John Sarvay did, so us bloggers came out. Not to poo-poo the race card… but I just feel like this was a thousand times more a PR issue than a race issue.
July 31, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Daniel,
Thanks for your comment, and I certainly agree that the PR was horrible. But some have suggested that the PR was adequate, if not ideal, as evidenced by the large numbers who showed up.
I’m just trying to figure out if the whole city got some advance notice, no matter how inadequate, why was the turnout so unrepresentative of our city’s demographic make-up? I mean, I doubt that Venture Richmond’s email list is exclusively white. The TD’s readership isn’t exclusively white. So why did mostly white folks make the time at the last minute?
I don’t think it was because of a complete lack of awareness in the black community- my suspicion is that there were other factors at work. But again, just my suspicion. More and better PR hopefully would have changed things, but I suspect events like this need more than just better PR- they need hard community-building work.
July 31, 2007 at 2:19 pm
PR could have been improved, but to say that there was an effort to NOT include the black community is a fictional stretch at best. Everyone’s intentions were for the best, but the execution could have used improvement.
VentureRichmond’s email list is largely voluntary, but I’m sure they also include downtown stakeholders. VR as a group is racially diverse, so all this stuff about purposely not notifying the black community is BS. The local main stream media including the Free Press knew about this event ahead of time and they all did an absolutely pitiful job of covering it. The RTD’s coverage was atrocious.
All of City Council knew about the event well in advance… yet only 3 members participated in the charrette on Saturday and all happened to be white. Where was Ellen Robertson who represents almost ALL of downtown? Again, disgraceful.
This Sarahan guy that pulled the race card decided to have a protest/demonstration before the Thursday presentation. As the news reported, no one showed up for it. I guess it was just bad PR again….
As Jon Baliles said, the process is far from over and still open to all people of all races. Anyone with any ideas can call, email, or stop by to make suggestions or comments to the planning folks.
It’s so sadly typical that in spite of such an uncharacteristic yet fantastic event that Richmonders will still find something to complain about.
July 31, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Richmondpics, I was wondering where you’ve been! Welcome back.
Just want to point out that I never claimed that anyone was excluded intentionally, simply that we should try to learn from the event and try to figure out how to make a good event even better by trying to ensure participation from all community stakeholders.
Regarding Richmond’s predictable complaint- I think there’s always going to be people complaining as long as we haven’t tried as a community to address race issues head-on- it’s the only way to move beyond the predictable conversation about racism- both those who say they feel excluded and those who say get over it. As long as we stay isolated from one another and unable to have honest conversations about difficult issues like these, things won’t change. There’s plenty of responsibility to go around for this controversy continuing. And I don’t expect it to go away soon given our history and the current economic and education disparities that exist between racial groups in Richmond.
I suspect the black politicians weren’t present because they have little faith in this particular process, as I suggested in my post. But why don’t we ask them instead of making assumptions?
August 2, 2007 at 1:33 pm
I think you’ve asked alot of good questions and made some good points. As a non-Richmond native, I can more objectively see some of the reasons, however, to answer them all, we would need to do some considerable digging. What was the exact ethnic make up of the event on all days? Who were the participants? How long have they lived in Richmond? What were there incomes, ages, gender, and occupations? Why did they choose to participate? What kind of social networks are they a part of? How many employees from the Richmond Times Dispatch and the Free Press participated?
Perform a simple random sample survey of African American census tracks and determine the reasons why they did or did not participate. It would be a good research topic for a Graduate student.
One observation: I noticed that on the opening evening there was a street festival going on at Kanawha Plaza near the canal, which tends to be a predominately African American favorite. Did the city know about this? Perhaps the charrette could have been scheduled on a different evening?
September 28, 2007 at 12:21 pm
[…] The consensus: too much talking and repetition from earlier meetings, but participants were diverse for a change and seemed to agree on the changes Richmond needs to […]
May 22, 2008 at 8:04 am
Charette.
What kind of signal does that send to minorities and mid to lower income Richmond citizens.
We are not on the border with Canada.
I’m a college graduate & I did not know what in the world this whole “charette” thing was all about. How can the organizers of this “forum” or “focus group” expect the average citizens (whose participation they claim to want) to get a signal of inclusiveness from such highfalutin language.
The signal/code of the “charette” term was to note upper income, white, exclusive.
This contributed, in a way, to sending the wrong signal to some citizens.
NOT SO CONCERNED IF YOU PUBLISH MY COMMENTS OR NOT. JUST TRYING TO HELP PINPOINT A FLAW (AND YOU CLAIMED TO WANT TO KNOW REASONS WHY MINORITIES DID NOT PARTICIPATE).
May 22, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Is that a joke? Is someone really arguing that people, because of their race or income level, don’t have the capacity to know what the word charrette means? It’s a term used often for the discussion of economic development items in a proactive, hands on community forum based setting. It was a one-day intensive effort to get the ball rolling on a new downtown plan. Even if the Charrette itself was not adequately advertised as some argue, the following months were full of countless opportunities for people of any demographic to participate. The Plan Draft was available online, at all city libraries, and at City Hall. Forums were held throughout the downtown neighborhoods where additional input was sought. Anyone with a telephone or change for a pay phone could have called to speak to Brooke Hardin in the City Dept of Community Development. Emailed input was taken into consideration. Press release after news report after RTD article after Free Press article put the word out for the vast downtown master plan process.
In the context of urban design/planning and architecture (which is what this charrette was all about) the term charrette was very relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charrette
May 23, 2008 at 8:17 am
No joke, richmondpics.
The question was asked & an answer was given.
Maybe you and the organizers should investigate how extensively well known the word “charette” is. Every time I heard it advertised on local television the anchors had to define the term “charette”.
So, no joke!
Also, what do you think the connotations are of using such “highfalutin” (I love that word) language?
If I were Hispanic I might use an obscure Hispanic term to advertise an event…if I intended to only attract Hispanics.
If I were a tech geek I might use some tech jargon.
If I were an attorney I might use legalese.
The term “charette” is not a term commonly known in the mid to lower income and minority communities (probably not extensively known in many White communities).
Don’t take my word for it. Investigate it.
As a matter of fact, Microsoft Word’s and Lotus Note’s spell checks do not even include it.
I am by no means claiming that this was the sole reason for a lack of minority participation. But I do think it contributed.
“Charette” implies to me to “stay away, snobbish, upper income people not interested in REAL people’s input”.
And, based on the results of the focus group, I would say that my assumptions were not far off.
May 28, 2008 at 12:58 pm
That’s balogna. Errr, sorry. Baloney.
May 28, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Err, if you don’t want an answer. Err, don’t ask a question. Don’t be sorry. Your mind is just closed. You know what you know and don’t want to know or accept anything otherwise.
Using words like “charette” you’ll never get inclusiveness.
If “charette” were such a well known word/concept the news media would not have needed to define it. Err.
May 28, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I don’t use words like charette because I’d never heard that word before this conversation. But I don’t think that has the effect that you propose of scaring away any particular demographic (except perhaps those that prefer Freedom Toast).
A more likely issue, if any, in my mind, is the one posited by others here, that perhaps many of these individuals have historically had little reason to trust any civil process and so have simply become detached. I do not know the solution to this, but I do think that a strong step would be to approach those in marginalized communities and talk to them as adults.
Vocabulary doesn’t decide inclusiveness so much as mutual respect.
I hope that my difference of opinion from yours does not truly make me closed minded.
By the way, this is my first time commenting on this blog and I feel like I should say thanks to the author for a great read. I’ve only recently found your blog, but I’ll be back for sure.
May 28, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Unfortunately for the Charrette is too big of a word argument, the charrette was but one element of the Downtown Master Plan process. There were maybe 10 “public meetings” over the past several months regarding the Plan. The word charrette wasn’t relevant to the format of these meetings so it wasn’t used. Surely public meetings/hearings aren’t considered inclusive or non-minority, or elitist. Those who couldn’t attend meetings were strongly encouraged to share their thoughts via, e-mail, phone, letter, etc.
May 29, 2008 at 2:07 pm
My last comments on this…
Dirt swept under the rug doesn’t go away.
Effective communicators know their audiences and choose the appropriate mode of communication.
Chris, how can people trust a particular civil process & engage themselves when the welcome mat implies that they are not the target guests?
If you want to mutual respect then start by including a diverse group of people to the original planning committees (I can guess the makeup…racial, economic, etc….of this committee). Charette would not have made it out of committee if a diverse group of people were involved.
I’m new to this blog also. I really like to get to the heart of problems in Richmond…but it’s hard when – just as you get to the beef – people cry bologna/baloney and sweep things under the rug.
Nothing gets resolved.
Now…sweep me out of sight. But trust me, this master plan is not likely to win the hearts of minority Richmond region residents. They will be disenfranchised and not participate in helping the region move forward.
May 29, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Charrette is a very common word in the urban/neighborhood design world. Google the word Charrette. These links explain why the use of the term had more to do with what was actually being done than some sly attempt to exclude certain segments of the population:
http://www.charretteinstitute.org/charrette.html
http://louisville.edu/org/sun/planning/char.html
As I mentioned previously, the charrette was but one aspect of the Downtown master plan process. Anonymous, did “public meetings” also target white, wealthy people in an attempt to discourage minority or low income participation? Because there were many, many, many other opportunities (aka public meetings) for anyone to express their opinions. Did making copies of the draft plan available at all city libraries and City Hall, as well as online in multiple places also discriminate against minorities/low-income residents? Was it also elitist to advertise the process heavily in local media such as the RTD, RFP, news stations, online media, etc?
The downtown master plan process over a decade ago had almost zero public participation and was controlled by a very small group of folks, often behind closed doors. In contrast, the current process has stressed the importance of community input.
May 30, 2008 at 10:07 am
I apologize for dismissing your argument too quickly. I think you make a valid point there that the initial committee was perhaps fundamentally flawed, which could have had an impact on the language/approach used.
I think we both could likely agree that there is a fundamental problem due to a divided society for which it would be difficult to lay blame on the individuals involved. The committee members chose language that was most appropriate to them. I do not believe that this was a malicious decision to even subconsciously exclude the less educated. I also believe that focusing on the language used misses the root of the problem. That’s what I was saying baloney to. Plus I’m not often able to be so funny (kidding, of course. I’m always hilarious). Sorry I didn’t expand on my thoughts initially. You’re right that I was too dismissive.
Whether we like it or not, the people who are currently in decision-making positions are better-educated which unfortunately implies some socioeconomic homogeneity. These people are charged with the task of uniting diverse groups, and in most cases I think they truly want to, but there is no manual for how to do this. A little grace from each side would go a long way to building trust.
July 31, 2011 at 2:12 pm
article submissions…
On Racism & the Charrette « Urban Richmond~…