The Just City Susan Fainstein Summary

In The Just City, Susan Fainstein begins to “to develop an urban theory of justice and to use it to evaluate existing and potential institutions and programs” in New York, London, and Amsterdam (p. 5). She wants to make “justice the first evaluative criterion used in policy making” (p. 6). While her book centers on idealism as a way to combat inequity and issues of justice in policy and planning, some may say that this is an unrealistic perspective. Throughout this book she explains the relationship between “democratic processes and just outcomes” (p. 24) which involve equity, diversity and democracy which are the main concepts of this book. Fainstein stresses that these things are important in public policy and urban planning because policy

In each of these case studies she investigates several urban projects. For example, in the New York chapter, she analyzes three development projects of Battery Park and Yankee Stadium mostly by considering the contribution of these projects to affordable housing and provision of inclusive public space. She then concludes that New York is diverse, but its policy and planning has led to inequity and a lack of democracy. This problem city is contrasted in her book by framing Amsterdam,as a Utopia where where her criteria of a just city are all met. When reading these chapters it can be inferred that Fainstein believes if a city has a egalitarian political culture, adequate welfare for all, and inhabitants can live in harmony and tolerance that the city will be just and successful. In the conclusion of the book she creates a list of methods that cities and governments may use to further of equity, diversity, and democracy and achieve social justice. The list, as she argues, is very ‘‘context-dependent’’ and‘‘assumes societies with a preexisting commitment to democratic-egalitarian norms as well as a history of applying such norms’’ (p. 171). This is one of the many reasons why I feel that Fainstein's work is not truly applicable and relies too heavily upon idealistic views and perfect

equity “It is not always a trade-off between justice & efficiency, but when there is, justice should prevail:(p.12). This can be problematic because it brings up the question can equity or justice exist in a capitalist society that is focused on efficiency, economic growth, and development? Questions like these often juxtapose Feinstein's idealistic visions and are not refuted by the stances she takes. Another problem that arises is that her ideals of policy and planning are often applicable to places such as the U.S and Amsterdam which are democracies, but her ideologies are not applied to other structures of governments and cities around the world. Therefore, we could not accurately say the her criteria of a just city based on equity, democracy, and diversity would be a solution for all places. Her ideas fall short in assessing the individual needs of particular cities and structures and creating solutions because she often uses a one shoe-fits all approach which can be counter productive when striving for equity. Lastly, I feel that her personal voice is lost amongst the other social justice theorists she chooses to cite such as surveying key contemporary, often radical, theorists of