The problem of homelessness in America underpins the definition of an American city: what it is, who it is for, what it does, and why it matters. And the problem of the American city is epitomized in public space. Mean Streets offers, in a single, sustained argument, a theory of the social and economic logic behind the historical development, evolution, and especially the persistence of homelessness in the contemporary American city. By updating and revisiting thirty years of research and thinking on this subject, Don Mitchell explores the conditions that produce and sustain homelessness and how its persistence relates to the way capital works in the urban built environment. He also addresses the historical and social origins that created the boundary between public and private. Consequently, he unpacks the structure, meaning, and governance of urban public space and its uses.
Mitchell traces his argument through two sections: a broadly historical overview of how homelessness has been managed in public spaces, followed by an exploration of recent Supreme Court jurisprudence that expands our national discussion. Beyond the mere regulation of the homeless and the poor, homelessness has metastasized more recently, Mitchell argues, to become a general issue that affects all urbanites.
An impressive, holistic critique of the commodification of housing and public space that brings theory and everyday observation together into a compelling package.
That said, the writing definitely gives away its origins as an expansion of papers he's published in journals elsewhere, and ... Well, I've always been a nag about lefty Critiques written in a joyless, meandering dribble, and I kinda think this could've been a 4 or 5 star zinger with some more loving-but-stern editing to really bring the various parts together for a wider audience?
An important book for anybody living in an American city right now. And particularly relevant for me, as Austin reinstates its public camping ban.
Mean Streets doesn't trace the individual causes of homelessness--in fact, it rejects the idea of homelessness as the result of personal trials or failings. Instead, it argues that the homeless are a class, and an unavoidable--even necessary--component of capitalism; from their early and official role as tramping workers, to their current position at the rough edge of disposable labor.
For me, though, the most interesting parts of the book are about the regulation of public space. It argues that public space is both necessary for (deliveries, etc.) and anathema to (organized labor demonstrations, etc.) a functioning capitalism. And it outlines the many (honestly surprising) ways in which public and semi-public spaces are policed in service of an expanding notion of the "right to be left alone" while in public. The upshot is that we increasingly don't have the right to be in many public places at all, unless our activities are in service of something society condones (usually buying things). And the policing of these rules is sometimes shockingly (to me, anyway) arbitrary, such that it amounts to a soft despotism. This diminishes the value of public space in all kinds of ways.
How do we balance the desire for public safety with the freedom to speak and interact in communal spaces? Who is allowed to be where, and for what reasons? What is lost when we allow arbitrary banishment from public places? These questions are at the heart of Mean Streets.
A book with an incredibly detailed and compelling discussion.
What struck me the most forms more of a personal point. There were a lot of parallels between the discussions in the book and my own understanding of homelessness and policy.