The visualization reveals the contradictions between image and reality. The image excludes toxicity, history, and even the physical situation of the proposed development. The caption indicates nuance--public reaction isn't limited to resistance to low-income housing, or to housing atop a toxic site. The short-sightedness of simply testing for carcinogens makes me curious about the different gradations of opposition to the project. The contested futures of toxic sites reveals much about how we think about place, and the boundaries between our bodies and the landscape. Our capacity for magical thinking is also displayed in the image; how could we think housing is an appropriate use for a toxic place? But then again, how many places are left that are not toxic? Where can we live?
Artifact
Analytic (Question)
Everyone can view this content
On