A few years ago, dozens of residents of a street in Barcelona’s El Raval neighborhood started hanging potted plants from their building facades, radically changing the street’s appearance for the better. It was not part of any official policy, but rather a spontaneous “grassroots” initiative that has since expanded to other streets. Flower pots, mostly containing spider plants, are held up by brackets fixed to exterior walls over 2 meters off the ground, where they do not cause obstruction. Watering cans on the ends of long poles are used to irrigate the plants.
It was delightful to witness the transformation of this street, and so I followed suit by hanging a pair of spider plants on either side of our building’s entrance door. Within weeks, a dozen other neighbors did likewise, and our own street became a little more civil and pleasant than before. The idea then caught on at the next street, and so on.
As it turns out, however, there is a resident in our neighborhood –indeed, a Ph.D. on espacios auto-gestionados (self-managed spaces)– who is arguing against the presence of these plants. Why? Because they are apparently contributing to the “gentrification” of our neighborhood.
It has indeed been shown that planting vegetation leads to rising rents, as does pedestrianization, the creation of bicycle lanes, and anything that makes a city more livable. Which begs the question: should we be making our cities more unlivable then? Should we not scoop the poop after our dog shits on the sidewalk? Should we toss more litter on the street? Why don’t we go all the way, and start breaking windows and torching cars and buildings? That ought to stop gentrification for good.
Yes, rents have indeed been rising much too steeply, far outpacing inflation and forcing long-time residents to leave their neighborhoods. But is the presence of vegetation really the root of this problem? Are corporate landlords such as Blackstone or Cerberus –the genuine cause of gentrification– really more interested in snapping up buildings on streets lined with plants? Similarly, do they really care whether or not there are bike lanes out front? I highly doubt it. To them, buildings are simply financial products to speculate with in large quantity. Land is a limited resource on this planet, so its value is bound to rise long-term. The more corporate landlords can legally amass lots and lots and lots of property, the more they can get away with exorbitantly raising rents. It’s called an oligopoly. To stop gentrification, and indeed inequality, we need laws to prevent oligopolistic business practices. Another cause is government golden visa schemes. These are what should be scrapped, not decorative plants.
The inner-city neighborhood of El Raval is tough to live in. It is overcrowded, noisy, and polluted. Many of its streets are too narrow to permit trees to grow, and so residents decide to hang potted plants instead. To argue that cities must not be beautified in the name of resisting gentrification is utterly absurd. Many long-time residents have also left El Raval precisely because they can no longer put up with all the garbage, dirt, and noise (to say nothing of all the delinquency, vandalism, and mafias). At least these plants lift our spirits, clean our air, and reduce the heat island effect of cities (El Raval is literally Barcelona’s hottest neighborhood). Condemning people to live in miserable urban environments for the sake of a political cause is simply inhumane, no matter how worthy the cause. Au contraire: everything must be done to improve the livability of cities, especially when it comes to low-income neighborhoods.
Besides, if residents take it upon themselves to improve their street, then isn’t that a perfect example of a “self-managed” space? Or are self-managed spaces only supposed to be managed by experts in self-management?
Uppermost image courtesy totbarcelona.blogspot.com
Criticalista 