What do you think?
Rate this book
The Just City
"The just city is one in which equity, democracy, and diversity are important considerations. This is in contrast with the city as growth machine. Fainstein examines three New York, London, and Amsterdam. She provides a history of post–World War II planning and then focuses on fairly recent cases of development in each. Her goals, though modest, are important if growing inequality in urban areas is to be reversed. Recommended."
― Choice For much of the twentieth century improvement in the situation of disadvantaged communities was a focus for urban planning and policy. Yet over the past three decades the ideological triumph of neoliberalism has caused the allocation of spatial, political, economic, and financial resources to favor economic growth at the expense of wider social benefits. Susan Fainstein's concept of the "just city" encourages planners and policymakers to embrace a different approach to urban development. Her objective is to combine progressive city planners' earlier focus on equity and material well-being with considerations of diversity and participation so as to foster a better quality of urban life within the context of a global capitalist political economy. Fainstein applies theoretical concepts about justice developed by contemporary philosophers to the concrete problems faced by urban planners and policymakers and argues that, despite structural obstacles, meaningful reform can be achieved at the local level. In the first half of The Just City , Fainstein draws on the work of John Rawls, Martha Nussbaum, Iris Marion Young, Nancy Fraser, and others to develop an approach to justice relevant to twenty-first-century cities, one that incorporates three central diversity, democracy, and equity. In the book's second half, Fainstein tests her ideas through case studies of New York, London, and Amsterdam by evaluating their postwar programs for housing and development in relation to the three norms. She concludes by identifying a set of specific criteria for urban planners and policymakers to consider when developing programs to assure greater justice in both the process of their formulation and their effects.
― Choice For much of the twentieth century improvement in the situation of disadvantaged communities was a focus for urban planning and policy. Yet over the past three decades the ideological triumph of neoliberalism has caused the allocation of spatial, political, economic, and financial resources to favor economic growth at the expense of wider social benefits. Susan Fainstein's concept of the "just city" encourages planners and policymakers to embrace a different approach to urban development. Her objective is to combine progressive city planners' earlier focus on equity and material well-being with considerations of diversity and participation so as to foster a better quality of urban life within the context of a global capitalist political economy. Fainstein applies theoretical concepts about justice developed by contemporary philosophers to the concrete problems faced by urban planners and policymakers and argues that, despite structural obstacles, meaningful reform can be achieved at the local level. In the first half of The Just City , Fainstein draws on the work of John Rawls, Martha Nussbaum, Iris Marion Young, Nancy Fraser, and others to develop an approach to justice relevant to twenty-first-century cities, one that incorporates three central diversity, democracy, and equity. In the book's second half, Fainstein tests her ideas through case studies of New York, London, and Amsterdam by evaluating their postwar programs for housing and development in relation to the three norms. She concludes by identifying a set of specific criteria for urban planners and policymakers to consider when developing programs to assure greater justice in both the process of their formulation and their effects.
224 pages, Paperback
First published August 19, 2010
27 people are currently reading
479 people want to read
About the author
Susan S. Fainstein
17 books14 followersSusan S. Fainstein (born 1938) is a political theorist and scholar of urban planning. Her research and writing has focused on the distributive effects of urban development strategies and megaprojects, the role of democracy and community control in local public institutions, and establishing a moral theory of "the just city."
A member of the urban planning faculties of Columbia University and Rutgers University for most of her career, Fainstein is now a research scholar at the Harvard Graduate School of Design.
A member of the urban planning faculties of Columbia University and Rutgers University for most of her career, Fainstein is now a research scholar at the Harvard Graduate School of Design.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
September 29, 2013
Would this book exist in a world without the pressure to publish?
The first half of the book is dense and works hard to avoid drawing clear conclusions, but is still the strongest part of the book. The second half of the book is a wide-eyed look at injustice that could have been written thirty years ago. Fainstein, a philosopher, has apparently only recently learned that eminent domain can be used unjustly.
The prescriptions for a just city include things like changing laws so that small businesses thrive and using local labor. Unoriginal suggestions, but safe enough for someone simply writing about these things with no risk of being in a position to implement them.
The first half of the book is dense and works hard to avoid drawing clear conclusions, but is still the strongest part of the book. The second half of the book is a wide-eyed look at injustice that could have been written thirty years ago. Fainstein, a philosopher, has apparently only recently learned that eminent domain can be used unjustly.
The prescriptions for a just city include things like changing laws so that small businesses thrive and using local labor. Unoriginal suggestions, but safe enough for someone simply writing about these things with no risk of being in a position to implement them.
Read
November 30, 2024I wanted so much more from this volume – I wanted a deep analysis of the ways in which injustices are spatially inscribed. Instead, I got 100 pages of rather weaksauce ideas rooted in the to my mind questionable theories of John Rawls and (more respectably) Martha Nussbaum, followed by some rather superficial case studies of three cities, and some conclusions that range from blatantly obvious (more public transport pls) to the highly questionable (holy means testing, this is a fear of universal programs that would make Kamala Harris blush). I have to say I got little to nothing from this book. I don’t want Susan Fainstein to perish, but this isn’t something she needed to publish.
March 13, 2024
The first two chapters start with a great philosophical inquiry into the meaning of 'justice', tackling some normative standpoints. David Harvey also provides a critical stance, arguing that humane capitalism is an oxymoron.
Unfortunately, how the first chapters provide a great introduction, sparking critical questions about how we want our cities to be (in the broadest sense of the word), Fainstein loses this sharpness in the following chapters. In my opinion, she comes with half-baked arguments derived from a few statistics in which she loses the critical lens of the first two chapters.
Our Urban Geography class was told that many policy makers in the Netherlands have this on their shelves... I sincerely hope this is not their holy grail.
Unfortunately, how the first chapters provide a great introduction, sparking critical questions about how we want our cities to be (in the broadest sense of the word), Fainstein loses this sharpness in the following chapters. In my opinion, she comes with half-baked arguments derived from a few statistics in which she loses the critical lens of the first two chapters.
Our Urban Geography class was told that many policy makers in the Netherlands have this on their shelves... I sincerely hope this is not their holy grail.
September 14, 2017
I really enjoyed this book. The first section of the book went into theoretical conceptions of justice, which I found to be well written, informative, and overall fascinating. I really enjoyed it.
My only real criticism is that in the section on poststructuralism, Fainstein writes, "By defending strong group identifications and simultaneously opposing spatial exclusion, poststructuralism endorses a situation in which antagonisms are openly expressed and may easily result not in increased understanding of the other, but in cycles of hostile action and revenge." I find the sentence to be an important criticism of poststructuralism, but I don't fully understand it, and Fainstein doesn't go into further detail. It feels like so much is packed into that sentence but isn't really developed, and I wish it was. Part of the issue is that I don't see the necessary jump between poststructuralism beliefs and their consequence, and it feels rushed. My understanding it that this only applies to the American version of poststructuralism, and not the European version.
The second section of the book is good, but I'm just personally more interested in the theoretical underpinnings of conceptions of justice, rather than comparisons of real world examples.
I feel like participatory action would be a better word than democracy, in Fainstein's focus on equity, diversity, and justice.
My only real criticism is that in the section on poststructuralism, Fainstein writes, "By defending strong group identifications and simultaneously opposing spatial exclusion, poststructuralism endorses a situation in which antagonisms are openly expressed and may easily result not in increased understanding of the other, but in cycles of hostile action and revenge." I find the sentence to be an important criticism of poststructuralism, but I don't fully understand it, and Fainstein doesn't go into further detail. It feels like so much is packed into that sentence but isn't really developed, and I wish it was. Part of the issue is that I don't see the necessary jump between poststructuralism beliefs and their consequence, and it feels rushed. My understanding it that this only applies to the American version of poststructuralism, and not the European version.
The second section of the book is good, but I'm just personally more interested in the theoretical underpinnings of conceptions of justice, rather than comparisons of real world examples.
I feel like participatory action would be a better word than democracy, in Fainstein's focus on equity, diversity, and justice.
February 3, 2012
¿qué constituye una ciudad justa en el contexto de la cultura occidental? esta es la pregunta fundamental que trata este libro.
desde una perspectiva de capacidades muy influenciada por el trabajo de Sen, pero también de otros teóricos como Habermas o Rawls, Susan Fainstein nos describe los procesos históricos que llevaron al desarrollo de 3 ciudades iconicas, Nueva York, Londres y Amsterdam, evaluando como cada una se aproxima a un ideal de justicia urbana; al final entregando una serie de parámetros que caracterizan a la ciudad justa.
desde una perspectiva de capacidades muy influenciada por el trabajo de Sen, pero también de otros teóricos como Habermas o Rawls, Susan Fainstein nos describe los procesos históricos que llevaron al desarrollo de 3 ciudades iconicas, Nueva York, Londres y Amsterdam, evaluando como cada una se aproxima a un ideal de justicia urbana; al final entregando una serie de parámetros que caracterizan a la ciudad justa.
February 5, 2021
«La ciudad justa» puede dividirse en dos partes, una teórica y otra práctica. En la parte teórica la autora define lo que es la ciudad justa: aquella donde la inversión y regulación produce resultados equitativos para todas las persona. En esta definición, la regulación se vincula con las políticas públicas que actúan sobre el territorio —en el análisis de Fainstein con políticas de renovación urbana—. Es aquí que se hace una aportacion muy valiosa. Son la equidad, la diversidad y la democracia los tres aspectos principales que la autora considera como constitutivas de la ciudad justa, por lo que todas las ciudades deben aspirar a cubrir estos aspectos.
La definición de cada aspecto y sus posibles contradicciones siguen a continuación. Finalmente, la parte práctica consiste en la aplicación de los criterios de equidad, diversidad y democracia en tres ciudades occidentales: Nueva York, Londres y Amsterdam. El texto concluye con una serie de recomendaciones al respecto y reflexiones finales.
Pienso que es un texto fundamental para el estudio de la justicia espacial y es recomendado para todas las personas que se interesen en el tema.
La definición de cada aspecto y sus posibles contradicciones siguen a continuación. Finalmente, la parte práctica consiste en la aplicación de los criterios de equidad, diversidad y democracia en tres ciudades occidentales: Nueva York, Londres y Amsterdam. El texto concluye con una serie de recomendaciones al respecto y reflexiones finales.
Pienso que es un texto fundamental para el estudio de la justicia espacial y es recomendado para todas las personas que se interesen en el tema.
August 5, 2022
The book can basically be split in to three parts:
The introduction, in which the author spends a lot of time explaining the three dimensions of a just city.
A chapter each on New York, London and Amsterdam with most of each being a summary of the citys' planning histories. At the end of each chapter 2-3 projects are examined and judged by their effects towards the three dimensions.
The final chapter then is a list of recommendations and thoughts on how to produce a more just city.
In my opinion, the first part of this book could have been said within 2-3 pages. The second part, while interesting is more of a history lesson than an analysis since the actual projects are only analyzed on a surface level. The last chapter is where the book finally delivers what it promises. The suggestions are all plausible and very interesting, but sadly they only scratch the surface. At least 20 of pages spent going on about the reason for choosing those 3 dimensions could have been used to further explain the suggestions in the last chapter in my opinion.
The introduction, in which the author spends a lot of time explaining the three dimensions of a just city.
A chapter each on New York, London and Amsterdam with most of each being a summary of the citys' planning histories. At the end of each chapter 2-3 projects are examined and judged by their effects towards the three dimensions.
The final chapter then is a list of recommendations and thoughts on how to produce a more just city.
In my opinion, the first part of this book could have been said within 2-3 pages. The second part, while interesting is more of a history lesson than an analysis since the actual projects are only analyzed on a surface level. The last chapter is where the book finally delivers what it promises. The suggestions are all plausible and very interesting, but sadly they only scratch the surface. At least 20 of pages spent going on about the reason for choosing those 3 dimensions could have been used to further explain the suggestions in the last chapter in my opinion.
July 3, 2022
The 21st century has brought new challenges that cities around the world are struggling to cope with. Protests, policing, inequality, intolerance, gentrification, and more recently sustainability. How will cities cope? How will cities meet these challenges?
In this relatively short volume, Fainstein focuses on the challenge of urban planning and sustainability in three European cities: New York, London, and Amsterdam. While her approach is not detailed for a book on city planning, nor overtly intellectually stimulating; she compensates for this by x-raying each city through the lenses of democracy, diversity, and equity. Using these indices, Prof. Fainstein submits that Amsterdam is the justest city in the world.
I read this book as part of a class on urban politics and sustainability. It's a good read :).
In this relatively short volume, Fainstein focuses on the challenge of urban planning and sustainability in three European cities: New York, London, and Amsterdam. While her approach is not detailed for a book on city planning, nor overtly intellectually stimulating; she compensates for this by x-raying each city through the lenses of democracy, diversity, and equity. Using these indices, Prof. Fainstein submits that Amsterdam is the justest city in the world.
I read this book as part of a class on urban politics and sustainability. It's a good read :).
November 1, 2017
The first half of the book is incredibly dense and reads like an academic paper. I struggled to follow the author's thoughts, because she spends so much time just offering up that of others.
The second half features a number of drive-by observations. Three cities with some fairly obvious cases of justice and injustice.
I feel like this book came out of a desire to publish a book and not having the time to see it through.
The second half features a number of drive-by observations. Three cities with some fairly obvious cases of justice and injustice.
I feel like this book came out of a desire to publish a book and not having the time to see it through.
February 23, 2018
Agreed with other reviewers: did this need to be written? Fainstein has done so much great work over a long career, but this isn't among them. The reviews--of literature and cases--are perfunctory and seem thin (it's a short book, perhaps it should have been longer!), and the suggestions are milquetoast at best. I understand the desire to be pragmatic but there is so much more that could have been said. Planning can do better.
January 29, 2025
Adding this to my Goodreads because it was for my urban studies class and I need to feel a sense of accomplishment bc it was soooo dense and hard to get through. But! I did learn a lot! Hopefully I sound smarter now.
July 8, 2023
A dense but well-written literature review of the tension between equity, democracy, and justice in the urban planning realm.
August 26, 2015
This is a very useful book for discussing contemporary urbanism/urban planning because it unites policy with philosophy. The question of designing a "just city," as Fainstein underscores, necessitates first having a clear definition of justice--and then deriving principles and strategies from it. Such a discussion needs to serve as a bedrock for planning.
Establishing definitions (or understanding others' definitions) is an important part of public discourse, and it is often overlooked. This comes up in Fainstein's discussion of the limits of the concept of deliberative democracy. The concept often assumes the existence of shared definitions, and it can hide the workings of power ("deliberation"/"discussion" means something different between unequal parties than it does between equal ones). And there is the ever-important point that rhetoric does not inherently translate into action. Faintein's corresponding argument that right process is not enough is thus well-taken; however, she can at times sound dismissive of the need for a robustly democratic process. She notes that democratic process could be a hindrance if the "reformers" are in power, but, as I see it, right ends must stem from right means. (And who identifies who are the right "reformers" anyway? Process is our safeguard.)
Fainstein highlights equity, democracy, and diversity as key principles for the promotion of a "just city." I think these are well-chosen, and Fainstein acknowledges how they can at times conflict. She surveys the literature on various meanings of diversity, but I think she doesn't make a clear case why diversity is an end in itself (and I believe that case can be made).
After establishing her conceptual framework, Fainstein looks at three case studies: New York, London, and Amsterdam. Building off my prior point about Fainstein's view of process, I thought that she had a tendency to overstate how "democratic" some processes really were. Many things that she commended (e.g., London's preparation--but not execution--of its 2012 Olympic bid) seemed rather *thinly* democratic.
In her final chapter, she lays out some policies and strategies for working toward a "just city." The policies she lays out were good but at times vague. Take, for example, the policy "All new housing units should provide units for households with incomes below the median, either on-site or elsewhere..." The contrasting implications of "on-site" vs "elsewhere" aren't really acknowledged, and such a policy needs some consideration of a numerical standard (5%? 10%? 25%? 35%? 50%?). Another example of vagueness is "Zoning should not be used for discriminatory ends but rather should foster inclusion." How do we define "inclusion"? "Inclusionary zoning" is a good principle, but how do we define it? And her recommendations around advancing democracy avoid the issue about how "representatives" or "advocates" are determined.
Despite these criticisms, I would highly recommend the book. Fainstein brings a lot of valuable insights and sharp analysis, and the book would be great for fostering the continual discussions needed to move modern cities in the direction of justice.
Establishing definitions (or understanding others' definitions) is an important part of public discourse, and it is often overlooked. This comes up in Fainstein's discussion of the limits of the concept of deliberative democracy. The concept often assumes the existence of shared definitions, and it can hide the workings of power ("deliberation"/"discussion" means something different between unequal parties than it does between equal ones). And there is the ever-important point that rhetoric does not inherently translate into action. Faintein's corresponding argument that right process is not enough is thus well-taken; however, she can at times sound dismissive of the need for a robustly democratic process. She notes that democratic process could be a hindrance if the "reformers" are in power, but, as I see it, right ends must stem from right means. (And who identifies who are the right "reformers" anyway? Process is our safeguard.)
Fainstein highlights equity, democracy, and diversity as key principles for the promotion of a "just city." I think these are well-chosen, and Fainstein acknowledges how they can at times conflict. She surveys the literature on various meanings of diversity, but I think she doesn't make a clear case why diversity is an end in itself (and I believe that case can be made).
After establishing her conceptual framework, Fainstein looks at three case studies: New York, London, and Amsterdam. Building off my prior point about Fainstein's view of process, I thought that she had a tendency to overstate how "democratic" some processes really were. Many things that she commended (e.g., London's preparation--but not execution--of its 2012 Olympic bid) seemed rather *thinly* democratic.
In her final chapter, she lays out some policies and strategies for working toward a "just city." The policies she lays out were good but at times vague. Take, for example, the policy "All new housing units should provide units for households with incomes below the median, either on-site or elsewhere..." The contrasting implications of "on-site" vs "elsewhere" aren't really acknowledged, and such a policy needs some consideration of a numerical standard (5%? 10%? 25%? 35%? 50%?). Another example of vagueness is "Zoning should not be used for discriminatory ends but rather should foster inclusion." How do we define "inclusion"? "Inclusionary zoning" is a good principle, but how do we define it? And her recommendations around advancing democracy avoid the issue about how "representatives" or "advocates" are determined.
Despite these criticisms, I would highly recommend the book. Fainstein brings a lot of valuable insights and sharp analysis, and the book would be great for fostering the continual discussions needed to move modern cities in the direction of justice.
May 30, 2012
In The Just City, Fainstein sets herself an ambitious task(s) - to "develop and urban theory of justice and to use it to evaluate existing and potential institutions and programs", and to create a bridge between theory and practice, by "provid[ing] a guide to what [policymakers and planners should] do if justice is the first evaluative criterion used in policymaking". It was that second objective that Fainstein articulated that kept me going; academics often offer theories on how we should view/approach an issue, or critique a particular situation or development. Less commonly do they offer (concrete and practicable) recommendations or propose a framework to put their theories into practice.
Fainstein does reasonably well in meeting her objectives within the parameters she has prescribed for herself. She defines her theory of justice, arguing that urban justice is constituted by three primary qualities of equity, democracy and diversity. She then looks at various developments in her three case study cities of London, New York and Amsterdam through this compound lens. And in the final chapter, as promised, she sets out principles that planners and policymakers should consider/bear in mind when seeking to further equity, diversity, democracy and therefore urban justice.
Within Fainstein's constructed universe, it all seems to fit together quite neatly. The question is, do you agree with the assumptions on which she has constructed this universe? That urban justice comprises the principles of diversity, equity and democracy? And that these terms are as Fainstein has defined them? Fainstein acknowledges the criticism of the relative importance of these principles and how they are/can be defined, but sometimes chooses to disengage rather than address these criticisms head on. Still, overall, a laudable attempt at putting together theory and practice in a fairly readable format.
Fainstein does reasonably well in meeting her objectives within the parameters she has prescribed for herself. She defines her theory of justice, arguing that urban justice is constituted by three primary qualities of equity, democracy and diversity. She then looks at various developments in her three case study cities of London, New York and Amsterdam through this compound lens. And in the final chapter, as promised, she sets out principles that planners and policymakers should consider/bear in mind when seeking to further equity, diversity, democracy and therefore urban justice.
Within Fainstein's constructed universe, it all seems to fit together quite neatly. The question is, do you agree with the assumptions on which she has constructed this universe? That urban justice comprises the principles of diversity, equity and democracy? And that these terms are as Fainstein has defined them? Fainstein acknowledges the criticism of the relative importance of these principles and how they are/can be defined, but sometimes chooses to disengage rather than address these criticisms head on. Still, overall, a laudable attempt at putting together theory and practice in a fairly readable format.
May 26, 2013
I wish this was written by a lawyer b/c a lot of what the author suggests to improve diversity and equality in cities is unconstitutional; otherwise it would have already been done. Specifically, requiring cities to only hire NYC construction firms to build megaprojects, or hiring only NYC residents to work in businesses once projects are complete can be encouraged but not required.
I also didn't like that the author never discusses the improvements to public safety that result from gentrification.
It also seemed that when it suited a case study, the author would decree that an urban development decision was unjust, despite improvements to infrastructure, public spaces, and transportation because the decision was made without enough public input or despite public opposition. But the author never explained why she thought the process was more important than the outcome.
All in all, this is a very dry book that unfortunately answers the question of whether urban development is just, and thus successful, based on process, and not outcome.
I also was hoping for new innovative urban redevelopment ideas in this book. But the only good idea I read in this book that was constitutionally possible was a "one-for-one" replacement policy; so that every time an affordable housing unit was converted to market-rate, it was replaced with another affordable housing unit somewhere in the same area. Besides that - and besides learning about the history of a few projects in NYC, London, and Amsterdam, which is quite interesting, this book is not a must read.
I also didn't like that the author never discusses the improvements to public safety that result from gentrification.
It also seemed that when it suited a case study, the author would decree that an urban development decision was unjust, despite improvements to infrastructure, public spaces, and transportation because the decision was made without enough public input or despite public opposition. But the author never explained why she thought the process was more important than the outcome.
All in all, this is a very dry book that unfortunately answers the question of whether urban development is just, and thus successful, based on process, and not outcome.
I also was hoping for new innovative urban redevelopment ideas in this book. But the only good idea I read in this book that was constitutionally possible was a "one-for-one" replacement policy; so that every time an affordable housing unit was converted to market-rate, it was replaced with another affordable housing unit somewhere in the same area. Besides that - and besides learning about the history of a few projects in NYC, London, and Amsterdam, which is quite interesting, this book is not a must read.
September 29, 2013
Well, I guess I can stop now. Fainstein's said everything I wanted to.
April 20, 2015
A good review of much of the literature on what a Just City is. Some recommendations seem difficult to actually implement without a radical shake-up of American Politics.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews