This week kicked off with an energized sense of optimism. After scrolling through Twitter, catching up on podcasts, and watching a White House Briefing dedicated to climate action, I’m happy to report that by Friday, the motivation persists. More importantly, I had one of those lightbulb moments that I needed to write down. After some deliberation, I’ve decided to share it, in hopes that it resonates or triggers a conversation.
On Monday evening, I was scheduled to participate in a virtual charrette for a grant proposal that is aimed at addressing Racial Equity through the Built Environment. If you know anything about The Bridge Eco-Village, the team that was leading the charrette, you’d read the RFP and recognize the perfect fit. We embrace ‘collaboration over competition’ and teamed up with two other developers (black-owned companies) for this three-hour workshop. The meeting started with a quick round of introductions. During mine, I made a passing comment about my excitement to have a working definition of success by the end of the workshop. In retrospect, I recognize this seemingly harmless comment reflected my privileged bias. The most glaring was my assumption that we could define, much less achieve success - as if equity were a problem that our development could solve.
Yesterday, a casual catch-up conversation with The Bridge’s CEO, Garry Gilliam, caused me to recognize this blindspot. The people of color in the group were taking turns sharing experiences in their lives that allowed them to tackle the challenges posed in the prompt. I was pretty quiet, finding myself thinking, “It’s great that we’re getting to know each other, but let’s stop the chatter, define the problem and get to our list of solutions.” I shared that sentiment with Garry who agreed, but responded, “I figured the first conversations are always more for trauma bonding. The project strategy will come.”
*Flashback to two specific points in my life that reminded me about the importance of language:
Early last year (pre-pandemic), I went to a long overdue wellness check. We went through the typical checklist of procedures and I was fortunate that my body showed all signs of ‘normal.’ As I was leaving, the doctor told me that I was “totally healthy.” As I walked out, it seemed almost criminal that he could possibly make that claim after doing a 15-minute once-over of my physical body. Sure, by his basic set of criteria listed on a clipboard, I showed some signs of health…. Wouldn’t it be nice if his simple list could make that guarantee? At that moment, I realized the delicateness of the words ‘health’ and ‘wellness’ and reflected on the nonchalant ways that the healthy building industry uses them for marketing.
Thinking back to that moment with the doctor then reminded me of some college courses that I took for my minor in Residential Property Management - the closest program to real estate that my school offered. I distinctly recall lessons with strict instruction that, when leasing to a prospective resident, we must never describe a property as ‘safe.’ Maybe there are safety features or design decisions that are intended to evoke safety, but we never simply sold a ‘safe space.’ Why? Because we couldn’t guarantee it, much less agree on a definition of what safety entails. No matter how we identify ourselves, that word holds meaning. But Safety is experiential. It is a feeling that is entirely dependent on our past experiences and yes, traumas in our history.
As I considered Garry’s acknowledgement that trauma bonding was obviously the first step in a real estate development process (not goal-setting), I realized that I had mischaracterized the use of the words ‘success’ and ‘equity’ as badly as that malpracticing (by my definition) doctor or a poorly trained leasing consultant might - even accidentally - misuse ‘health’ or ‘safety.’’
This was the moment I realized how backwards - and dangerous - our current success-driven practice towards building an ‘equitable development’ can be. As if the physical building itself can define - much less solve - for equity!?
The visible racial injustices of the Summer of 2020 finally forced corporate America to deem our inequities a crisis and developers are latching on. The real estate industry’s marketing and communications teams have fully adopted the DEI language. And while we are learning more about how we can shift traditional building design to facilitate a more permeable, accessible environment or make decisions in design and construction that prioritize diversity, it is critical to recognize the responsibility that these words hold.
It is dangerous - maybe criminal - for us to claim that a new building or development is, on its own, equitable.
This isn’t a catch 22 or a non-starter. This is simply a realization - maybe one that others have experienced and certainly one that authors have more eloquently detailed before me - of how important words can be to communicate what it means to create a ‘successful’ community. As if we can define a community’s success or create community in the first place.
In the future, I pledge to identify, highlight, and suggest alternatives when I witness the misuse of these words. Chances are, it’s not coming from a place of malice, but maybe from a similar blindspot that I have - and am working to address.
The reminder is that diversity, equity, inclusion, and the other language that developers are now quick to cite in a project pitch or marketing material, is not and cannot be manufactured. Nor are they metrics to define success.
-Kristen Fulmer