Search

This image draws attention to how a discourse of how urban placemaking (and attendant marketing) is bound up with a politics of race. The image directly represents how a largely white population will be discursively linked to "best places to live". The production of place through race is arguably emblematic of how non-white populations become symbolic of 'pollution' thereby associated with the 'diminishing' of the liveability of a place.  Such populations become, as Mary Douglas puts it, constructed as "matter out of place."  

To be honest, I struggled with the caption. It is short and descriptive. While I previously mention relationships between populations being classified as 'pollutants' thereby there marginalisation framing the 'liveability' of a city I feel like I am imposing a reading of the image and caption .

The image is a collected one (advertisement) of a city combined a graph prepared to illustrate the racial demographics of a city. The scale of attention is broad, but I cannot help feeling that it is so broad the ties to toxicity become vague. Nonetheless, the composition does provide an opportunity to think about how race, urban placemaking, and a liveability discourse are constructed. So, the comparative nature of the image is generative, so the composition works.

I would suggest working on a way to draw into the image a trigger for generating a reflection about toxicity and how some communities are constructed as 'toxic communities' or populations as 'pollutants'. Dorceta Taylor's work might be worth using as a source of inspiration? Or Mary Douglas's work. I don't mean to be negative but I connections vague here. 

In my reading, I could make a link between how the production of place through race is arguably emblematic of how non-white populations become symbolic of 'pollution'/'toxicity' thereby diminishing the liveability of a place. A comparative analysis of marketing of cities and demographics can contribute to determing the racialisation of that liveability placemaking discourse. I am not really sure how the text about climate action connects in. I find the ties bewteen the different elements in the image somewhat vague. Or I am simply missing something. Sorry. 

This visualization works very well for presenting the ethnographic case. It shows the contradictions of Austin's "environmentally-conscious" reputation combined with policies of gentrification and exclusion, particularly against Latinos and blacks residents.  

While the caption presents the case quite clearly. The idea that this "clean" city is actually toxic for some of its residents is implicit, but the notion has the potential for a more nuanced discussion using the terminology of toxicity. 

The ethnographer provides details of the source of this image (Tane Ward of Equilibrio Norte). The composition shows the contradiction behind Austin's reputation as "the best place to live", which seems to be hand in hand with a gentrification process. 

The composition is nicely achieved, however, it would be helpful to have the date of the Census data in it. 

This composition is very rich in data, the idea of a "clean" toxicity is there, perhaps you could further develop a conceptualization of toxicity that is "hidden", is toxic for some, or maybe a discussion of gentrification as displaced toxicity.