This a draft version of this manuscript. The author requests that any quotations or other citations refer to the official version, which can be

found here: http://usj.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/12/05/0042098014560501.full.pdf+html

Constructing the narrative of the sustainability fix: Sustainability, social justice and representation in Austin, TXJoshua LongSouthwestern University, Georgetown, Texas (USA)

Abstract

In recent years Austin, Texas has gained popularrecognition as a ‘sustainable city’ while experien-cing robust economic growth. Austin’s ability toresolve many of the political tensions betweendevelopment and environmental protection have made it afavoured case study for North American policymakers whoseek to mimic the ‘Austin model’. However, despiterecognised environmental achievements, the popularstoryline of Austin’s move toward sustainabilityoverlooks key aspects of sustainable development,including equitable political representation,affordability, displacement of vulnerable populationsand other social justice issues. Using While et al.’s‘sustainability fix’ as a conceptual framework, thispaper explores the historical development, ideologicalconstruction and strategic implementation of Austin’ssustainability agenda. In doing so, this paper moves

beyond a lateral understanding of sustainabilityrhetoric toward a more nuanced and critical analysis ofthe selective promotion and implementation ofsustainability agendas, as well as the consequencesthey have for social justice and equity in the‘sustainable cities’ of the 21st century.

KeywordsAustin, governance, social justice, sustainability fix,sustainable cities, sustainable urban development,Texas, theory

Received December 2013; accepted September 2014

IntroductionThe rhetoric of sustainability now permeates mostaspects of contemporary urban policy and has become animportant discursive framework for urban governance torationalise development strategies while simultan ouslygarnering public support (Brand, 2007; Lombardi et al.,2011; Lorr, 2012; While et al., 2004). This isparticularly true in the creative entrepreneurial city,where official commitments to eco-modernisation,ecosystem protection and environmental amenities areincreasingly marketed as important draws for skilledlabour as well as creative and tech-oriented industries(Brand, 2007; Florida, 2005; Gibson and Butler, 2013;Krueger and Gibbs, 2007). Yet the ambiguous languageand diverse goals of sustainable urban developmentleave room for interpretation, allowing a diverse setof policy actions to be labeled under the populardiscursive banner of ‘sustainability’ (Lombardi et al.,2011; While et al., 2004). In this context,municipalities are employing a strategically defined

‘sustainability fix’ to balance economic, social andenvironmental concerns according to the preferredinterests of policy makers, business leaders andspecial interests (While et al., 2004). The concept ofa ‘sustainability fix’– which builds upon the popularmomentum of mainstream environmentalism to legitimategrowth agendas and selectively reconcile governancedilemmas – has provided an important theoreticalframework for elucidating urban growth strategies inthe 21st century (While et al., 2004). Cities thatembark on sustain- ability agendas vary in theirability to achieve real environmental success, and out-comes are context specific. Indeed, research is neededto understand the scope, prioritisation and efficacy ofeach ‘fix’ as it emerges, as well as to understand thepolitical ideologies and rhetoric that legitimate itsimplementation (Jonas and While, 2007; Temenos andMcCann, 2012). Following these recommendations, thispaper draws upon the case study of Austin, Texas tocritically investigate the historical development,efficacy and ideological construction of thesustainability fix in a rapidly growing North Americancity.

Austin has emerged as a popular model for sustainableurban development amidst robust economic growth andpronounced demographic changes. In 1980, Austin was the42nd largest city in the USA. By 2010, Austin hadbecome the 11th largest, and a recent US Census reporthas dubbed Austin the ‘nation’s capital for populationgrowth’, with three of its neighbouring cities alsoappearing in the top ten list of fastest growing citiesin the USA (US Census, 2014). Austin is alsoexperiencing remark- able economic vibrancy. Theeconomy grew 5.88% in 2013, topping Forbes’ list offastest growing economies for the fourth year in a row

(Carlyle, 2014). Austin has maintained this pace whilealso building a national reputation as a leader inurban sustainability, making it an ideal site toexamine the negotiation of tensions that usually arisebetween urban growth and environmental protection.

Recent scholarship on Austin has acknowledged themainstream lionisation of the ‘Austin model’ of urbansustainability, but has also complicated the city’strack record by interrogating the promises andchallenges evident in the past decade of development.Works such as Moore (2007), Swearingen (2010) and Long(2009, 2010) have constructed a cautiously optimisticview of Austin’s future, while McCann (2003, 2007) andTretter (2013a, 2013b) point to growing problems ofsocial inequity, housing affordability andenvironmental (in)justice. The above works representvariegated but parallel attempts to understand theevolution of sustainability policies in Austin. Bylocating the synergies in these works and applying newprimary research, this paper advances both empiricaland conceptual understandings of Austin’ssustainability politics and offers relevant insightinto the ongoing evolution of the ‘sustainability fix’among 21st-century municipalities. This paper drawsfrom a wide range of primary and secondary sources toinform its argument.1 First, the author con- ducted 26semi-structured, open-ended inter- views with keyinformants. Key informants include City of Austin (COA)elected officials, COA employees, business leaders,local scholars, journalists, non-profit volunteers andactivists. Informants were selected using a combinationof judgement and snowball sampling, and were chosenbased upon their expertise in the subject (such as inthe case of local scholars and consultants), theiradministrative or leader- ship roles (in the case of

elected officials or policymakers) and their activeinvolvement in relevant issues (such as with local non-profit employees and administrators, com- munityorganisers and residents of affected neighbourhoods).In addition, the author conducted 36 informalinterviews with activists, Central and East Austinresidents, the homeless, city officials and developersduring the period from 2011 to 2014. Voices from thefollowing offices, institutions and organisations arerepresented, in alphabetical order:

Austin Chronicle Austin City Council Austin Energy Austin Resource Center for the Homeless (ARCH)City of Austin Department of Economic Growth & Redevelopment City of Austin Department of Resource and Recovery

City of Austin PlanningDepartmentEnvironment Texas FrontSteps Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) Mobile Loaves and Fishes

Nature Conservancy People Organized in Defense of Earth and her Resources (PODER)

Public CitizenSt. Edwards UniversityUniversity of Texas at Austin

Second, the author referenced local media sources suchas the Austin American Statesman, the Austin Chronicle, the AustinBusiness Journal and statistical data from the US CensusBureau, Texas A&M Real Estate Center data base and theCOA website. Lastly, this paper draws from recentscholarship on Austin – to add to the aforementionedinterview sources – in order to construct a cohesive

framework for understanding the historical developmentof Austin’s sustainability policies.

Urban governance and sustainability politicsMuch attention has been paid recently to the ‘greening’of neoliberal urban governance as municipalities areincreasingly pressured to balance growth-firstdevelopment policies with public concerns over sustain-ability (see, for instance, Brand, 2007; Keil andBoudreau, 2005; Krueger and Gibbs, 2007; Temenos andMcCann, 2012; While et al., 2004). Building uponHarvey’s (1982, 1996) ‘spatial fix’, While et al.(2004: 551) suggest that the increasing salience ofenvironmental issues has forced state actors toincorporate sustainability programmes and policies intobroader planning goals as both a way to gain publicsupport and safeguard growth trajectories. Thesustainability- oriented agenda that emerges is oftenmore political than material, however, and as While etal. (2004) argue, the incorporation of environmentalconcerns is rarely a ‘deep green’ or ‘strongsustainability’ approach. Rather, the ‘sustainabilityfix’ is most useful in ‘manag[ing] ecological dissentor pursu[ing] new accumulation strategies’ (While etal., 2004: 554). And while this strategy may lead toincreased sustainability efforts, it is ‘often as muchabout changes in the political discourse as it is aboutmaterial change in the ecological footprint’ (While etal., 2004: 554).

Recent case studies reveal the different ways that the‘fix’ materialises in context (see, for instance, Keiland Boudreau, 2005; Krueger and Gibbs, 2007; Temenosand McCann, 2012). Several common facets of the

‘sustainability fix’ have emerged from these casestudies (and others) that are relevant to this study.First, the successful implementation of asustainability agenda is predicated on the malleabilityof its dis- course and the ways in which urbangovernance is able to employ the language ofsustainability selectively (Keil and Boudreau, 2005;Krueger and Gibbs, 2007). ‘Urban sustainability’ hasbecome an inclusive concept that emphasises a balanceamong the ‘three pillars’ of economic vital- ity,environmental protection and social equity (Krueger andGibbs, 2007). However, these are rarely weighedequally, and the widespread prioritisation of the threepillars (economy first, environment second, socialequity last) reveals a tendency to emphasise publicinvestment programmes and partner- ships thatselectively merge economic and environmental goals;social justice concerns, however, tend to remain adistant priority (Ageyman et al., 2003; Lombardi etal., 2011).

Second, because it is a form of political compromise,an ideology or narrative must be constructed locally inorder to negotiate socially contested notions ofsustainable growth and development (Brand, 2007;Temenos and McCann, 2012). For instance, Temenos andMcCann (2012: 1392) argue, ‘detailed case studyanalyses [.] can offer valuable insights into howgovernments and citizens create local ideologiessurrounding sustainability and how, in turn, thoseideolo- gies drive the fundamentally political processof policy-making’. It should not be taken as a giventhat this ideology (or narrative) is the sole productof policymakers or municipal propaganda. Instead, ‘thesustainability fix relies on the participation andconsent of the local population as a whole’ (Temenos

and McCann, 2012: 1400). The legitimation of thesustainability fix requires a carefully craftednarrative that is reciprocated by policymakers,business interests, the media and local citizens.However, while studies acknowledge this point, nonehave yet addressed the ways in which these ideologiesare constructed over time and how they come toinfluence the development of ‘the fix’.

Lastly, while current case study evidence of the‘sustainability fix’ suggests a prioritisation ofeconomic and environmental concerns over social justiceissues, there is some question as to whether this willcontinue (Krueger and Gibbs, 2007; Tretter, 2013a). AsJonas and While (2007: 152) state, ‘an important taskfor future research will be to identify whether or notthe contradictions of urban entrepreneurialism areopening up possibilities for [.] a stronger and moresocially just sustainability fix’. This paper addresseseach of these facets in order to question and furtherdevelop the utility of the ‘sustainability fix’ as aconceptual frame- work for understanding current andfuture trends in urban governance. Because of itsremarkable growth, its ability to maintain anenvironmental reputation and its current popularity asa ‘model’ for sustainable development, Austin, Texas,presents an ideal case study.

Over the past three decades, an exceptionalistnarrative of sustainability has evolved in Austin.Initially emerging as a political compromise, theinclusion of environmental concerns have becomeincreasingly incorporated into land use decisions,development partnerships and municipal programmes.Today, the rhetoric of sustainability is a prominentfeature of the municipal planning ethic and hasrecently become formalised in the city’s comprehensive

plan: Imagine Austin. That narrative of sustainabilityimplies widespread representation and there- forepolitical legitimation. However, as this papersuggests, the dominant narrative of Austin’ssustainability has largely over- looked the concerns ofits most vulnerable populations.

Austin prior to the neoliberal eraIn the early post-war era, environmental andrecreational amenities were key components of amarketing strategy promoted by the Greater AustinChamber of Commerce, who had built a cooperativerelationship with the University of Texas, the City ofAustin (COA) and local business interests. The Chamberand the COA began a campaign to lure high technologyand small electronics firms while the University ofTexas increased investment in innovative research anddevelopment programmes (Busch, 2011; Humphrey, 1997;Tretter, 2013b). It was a successful strategy. Inaddition to Austin’s physical landscape andrecreational amenities, industries were attracted tothe city’s low cost of living, non-union reputation andan available labour pool of skilled knowledge workers.By the end of the 1970s, notable tech firms such asTracor (1955), IBM (1967), Texas Instruments (1969),Motorola (1974) and Advanced Micro Devices (1979) werefirmly established in the area (Humphrey, 1997). Thepopulation of the city nearly tripled during thisperiod, from 132,459 (1950) to 345,496 (1980), and thecity gained a national reputation for its music scene,its quality of life and its particular brand of ‘high-tech entrepreneurialism’ (Humphrey, 1997; Long, 2010).But there was also widespread concern among Austinresidents that rapid growth was ruining the city they

loved (Long, 2010; Swearingen, 2010). During the 1980sand 1990s, mounting tensions between an establishedgrowth coalition and a vocal public citizenry led to acontentious period of identity politics that witnessedthe formation of a place-based narrative thatemphasised environmental protection, growth managementand the preservation of a unique Austin lifestyle.

Activism and entrepreneurialism in the 1980sand 1990sAustin entered the neoliberal era with an idealenvironmental landscape for attracting mobile labourand capital. At a time when many major industrialcities were suffering from pollution, Austin wasexpanding its parks system and establishing greenbelts.Public sentiment toward the protection of the city’snatural landscapes was bolstered by the 1970senvironmental movement and a beautification campaignled by Lady Bird Johnson (Swearingen, 2010). At thistime, Austin had experienced no significant air orwater pollution issues and had never registered asuperfund site (Long, 2010). In the early 1980s,Austin’s reputation as a Sunbelt ‘Silicon Hills’ wasluring mobile capital and industry, as a growthcoalition of real estate developers, the Chamber ofCommerce and city officials lobbied for increasedhousing development, retail and roads to accommodatethe influx of upper middle class, white collar workers(Busch, 2011; Swearingen, 2010). During this time,growth in Austin outpaced all other major cities inTexas, and there was concern among some city officialsand the public that business interests were sacrificingAustin’s environmental quality for economic prosperity(Humphrey, 1997). The successful recruitment of 3M in

1982, for example, occurred without the knowledge ofmany city council members, despite the fact that citygovernment was expected to provide infrastructure tothe plant in an environmentally sensitive area(Robbins, 2003). It was just one of many incidents inwhich the Chamber vision for Austin was increasinglycoming into conflict with many who were concerned overrapid growth and environmental degradation. As formercity council member and Austin Energy general managerRoger Duncan noted in an interview:

Right now you have the ‘Austin formula’ they talk about– the joining of the environmentalists and the Chamberof Commerce and so forth – but that wasn’t the caseback then. Back then we were suing each other. Backwhen I was on the council, see, 3M located in [WestAustin], and they kept it from the council members.They made the announcement, and the Chamber of Commercecut a deal with 3M to locate west of town and they keptthe city council members – at least the liberal councilmembers – were kept in the dark about it. We read it inthe newspaper like everyone else. That’s howadversarial we were. (Personal interview)

Yet, conflict between business interests and cityofficials was not enough to slow the pace of growth. Astech companies and research consortiums such asLockheed (1981), Tandem Computer (1981), Minco (1982),3M (1982) and Microelectronics Computer Consortium(1983) arrived in Austin, they brought with them amajor real estate and construction boom. In 1983, citycouncil elections resulted in a predominantly growth-friendly council with connections to the businesscommunity and local media (Swearingen, 2010). At thesame time, how- ever, public opposition to growth wasreaching a boiling point, and many reacted to the 1983elections with concern. Neighbourhood organisations(which grew from only three in the early 1970s to more

than 150 by the mid 1980s) collaborated withenvironmental groups to mobilise opposition to anythingthat was seen to encourage growth and take away fromthe unique character of the Austin landscape (Barna,2002; Humphrey, 1997; Swearingen, 2010). As historianDavid Humphrey notes (1997: 57):

Some lamented, and others raged, that Austin wasbecoming less live-able and worse yet, more likeHouston, the ultimate in urban excess . Uncontrolledgrowth, they charged, was jamming Austin’s roads,defacing its natural beauty, and polluting its water.

This was a dynamic time in Austin’s history, asregional and national economic crises were creatingopportunities for anti-growth and pro-environmentalgroups to gain traction. By the late 1980s, the savingsand loans crisis and rampant land speculation left boththe financial and real estate sectors suffering.Between 1985 and 1989, 31 of 52 Austin banks failed andthe commercial vacancy rate in Austin reached 38%(Robbins, 2003). There was an uneasy feeling amongAustinites that the city was losing its identity, andpolitical debates provided an important public forumfor creating a narrative around Austin’s identity andsense of place (Long, 2010; Swearingen, 2010). Theenvironment quickly became an important part of thatdiscourse. Debates over land development, populationgrowth, traffic issues, housing needs and quality oflife consistently employed environmentalist rhetoric.As Swearingen (2010: 117) notes:

These elections were public fights . The electionsthemselves served as an arena in which the battlebetween the Growth Machine and its opponentsarticulated a set of frames about the environment andother issues related to growth in Austin. They were adefining part of the discourse of Austin, both

reflecting the ways people thought about Austin, andhelping to define those ideas about place.

Often referred to as the ‘development vs. anti-growth’or ‘developers vs. environment’ battles of the 1980s,these conflicts would influence political discourse inAustin for the next two decades (Moore, 2007; Saha,2008; Swearingen, 2010; Tretter, 2013b). The narrativeof environmental sustainability that emerged from thesebattles emphasised growth management, the protection ofecosystem services (especially water) and habitatconservation as vital components of the preservation ofAustin’s quality of life and sense of place (Long,2010; Moore, 2007; Swearingen, 2010). During the 1990s,the political strength of that narrative becameevident. The first ‘development vs. environment’ battlebegan early in June of 1990, when approximately 900citizens showed up to a city council meeting to speakagainst a controversial development in anenvironmentally sensitive area, the Barton Creekwatershed. The S.O.S. or ‘Save our Springs’ campaignpitted a populist ‘David’ grassroots alliance ofneighbourhood and environmental groups against thedevelopment ‘Goliath’ of Freeport McMoran. It was thelongest city council hearing in Austin history with thelargest number of speakers, and was widely viewed as‘one of those historic points in Austin’s environmentalhistory, pivotal to everything that would happen in thenext few years’ (Swearingen, 2010: 151). From 1990 to1997, several local political battles allowed thevoting base to shift toward environmental and qualityof life issues. The 1997 election of a 7–0 pro-environment city council (frequently referred to as the‘Green Council’) was seen as proof that power in citygovernance had shifted from ‘Growth Machine’ to ‘GreenMachine’ (Moore, 2007). However, while it is apparentthat the environmental battles of the 1980s and early

1990s institutionalised the environment as a principleissue in Austin politics, it did not diminish theinfluential role of local business and the Chamber ofCommerce. Instead, the election of the Green Counciland Mayor Kirk Watson (former vice chair of theChamber) would usher in a new era of Austinenvironmental politics that saw an unusual compromisebetween environmental and business interests. It alsowitnessed the early articulation of a sustainabilitynarrative that prioritised the concerns of Austin’senvironmental mainstream over the social equity andenvironmental racism concerns that affected Austin’slow-income, minority and homeless communities.

Smart growth and the emergence of thesustainability narrativeAustin boomed again in the mid 1990s. Mainstays of theAustin economy – the government and education sectors –kept the late 1980s recession at bay as the Chamber ofCommerce continued an aggressive campaign to luremobile capital and high tech industry to the city(Robbins, 2003). Again, the Chamber was successful.Tech giants such as Motorola, IBM, Dell and AMDexpanded their operations while new arrivals, such asSamsung, reaffirmed the attraction of the Austin area(Gibson and Rogers, 1994). Total employment growth wasstrong, but the high-tech sector was the big story,experiencing more than 80% growth during the decade(McCann, 2007). During the same period, the populationof the Austin MSA grew by 32% and swelled to more than1 million people. The city was also experien- cingrapid urban sprawl and increased traffic congestion. AsBarna (2002: 23) writes:

For people concerned about Austin’s quality of life,the effects were frightening . by mid- decade,[Austin’s] average commuting times had become thehighest of any mid-sized city in the country. By 1996,Austin had become the capital of Texas sprawl.

Amidst a seemingly contradictory urban growth patternthat attracted capital accumulation but discursivelyprioritised environmental issues, a compromise wasreached. It came in the form of Smart Growth, and thechief proponent was Austin’s newly elected mayor, KirkWatson. Revising an idea from a previously abandonedcomprehensive plan, Watson offered a vision ofdevelopment that redirected growth away fromenvironmentally sensitive areas (in particular, theEdwards Aquifer recharge zone in the western portion ofthe city) toward ‘desired development zones’ in thecentral and eastern parts of the city. The planborrowed heavily from the planning principles of SmartGrowth (i.e. pedestrian and mass transit-orienteddevelopment, stakeholder collaboration and mixed-use,high- density infill development in the urban core),and employed much of the rhetoric of con- temporarysustainable urban development (McCann, 2003; Tretter,2013a). The city council and Kirk Watson sold the planas one that created a liveable, economically vibrantand sustainable Austin (Long, 2010), and through theiradvocacy and the public discourse that surrounded it,Austin’s con- temporary sustainability agenda began totake shape.

Generally speaking, the plan appealed to the concernsof the major political factions. Environmentalistsfavoured the emphasis on eco-friendly design, theprotection of ecosystem services and the discouragementof sprawl. The business community and the Chamberappreciated the incentive-based approach to planning

and saw potential in creating an attractive downtown(Long, 2009, 2010; Tretter, 2013b). One year after theelection of the Green Council and Watson, a package ofmunicipal bonds was passed that strongly supported theSmart Growth vision (Swearingen, 2010; Tretter, 2013a).Within two years, the city had allocated over US$100million in incentives to tech companies, retailers andhigh-density, mixed-use developers, and the downtownsaw the first set of major construction projects sincethe S&L crisis (Barna, 2002). The Smart GrowthInitiative was never formalised in a comprehensiveplan, but the principles were heralded by many as aprogressive move toward revitalising Austin’s down-town, protecting environmentally sensitive areas, andluring ‘clean’ and green industry.

Merging economy and the environment under thebanner of sustainabilitySince 1997, city governance and the Austin businesscommunity have cooperated on initiatives and projectsthat reveal a strategic re-articulation of the‘developer vs. environ- mentalist’ conflict under theinclusive banner of sustainability. Recognising thepolitical salience of environmental issues to both oldand new residents, as well as Austin’s potential in theemerging clean energy economy, the Chamber made greenindustries and clean technology an important part ofits 2004 ‘Opportunity Austin Plan’ – a regional jobcreation programme (Austin Chamber, 2013). Over thepast decade, the Chamber has initiated programmes suchas the Clean Energy Council (promoting entrepreneur-ship in the clean energy sector) and Clean TXFoundation (a networking and resource group for cleanenergy professionals), and has partnered with the city

on projects such as the Pecan Street demonstration (aresearch consortium focused on smart grid technologyand energy conservation).

Unlike the 1980s and 1990s, when economic andenvironmental interests were seen as oppositional, theChamber now recognises the ability of Austin’s greenreputation to attract talent, capital and industry. Thedirector of the Chamber’s Clean Energy initiative, JoseBeceiro, has noted:

Austin has benefitted from its environmentally friendlyreputation in many ways. The com- munity’s commitmentto the environment, including the conservation ofwater, energy, and green space, has created a greenmove- ment that translated into growth for the regionalclean energy economy. (Personal interview)

Lucia Athens, director of Austin’s Office ofSustainability also mentioned the benefits of Austin’sgreen image:

I think two of the things we are really known for arebeing the ‘live music capital of the world’ (our self-appointed title) and being a green leader. I thinkthose are our two things that people think of when theythink of Austin . I really do think that our greenimage has a lot to do with why certain people areattracted to Austin and why certain companies want tocome here. (Personal interview)

Bolstered by the business interests and a publicmandate for environmental protection, the city hasembarked on a set of initiatives that strengthens itseco-friendly reputation. These include improvements totheir green building programme, habitat conservation,water security, waste reduction, renewable energyprogrammes and numerous other initiatives (see Table1).

Many of these have been coordinated and promoted by theCOA Office of Sustainability (established in 2010),which launched its Sustainability Action Agenda in 2012to address ten major areas of sustain- ability (seeFigure 1).

In 2007 the municipal utility company, Austin Energy,announced its Climate Protection Plan (CPP), setting a

goal of 35% renewable energyby 2020 (Austin Energy, 2013;EPA (Environmental ProtectionAgency), 2013; Muraya, 2008).Recognised as one of the mostaggressive greenhouse gasreduction plans in the USA,the CPP is cur- rently ontrack to meet its goals by the2020 deadline. The city hasFig.1

also completed or is in the process of initiatingseveral master planned sustainable communities and eco-districts in the desired development zone. The mostnotable of these is the 700 acre Mueller Neighborhood,an eco-friendly, new urbanist community that now housesapproximately 13,000 residents in what was formerly thesite of Austin’s Mueller Airport.

In recent years, Austin has received numerousenvironmental awards and recognitions, including beingnamed one of the EPA’s model cities for environmentallyfriendly infrastructure, the 2012 EPA Green PowerLeadership Award and the 2013 EPA Climate LeadershipAward. In addition, Austin has appeared on at least adozen national and international urban environmentalrankings lists since 2007 (see Table 2), con- firmingthe media’s notable contribution to the evolvingnarrative of sustainability.

Austin’s environmental success story has developed inconcert with its reputation as an economic boomtown.Despite brief set- backs during the 2001 and 2008recessions, Austin has experienced remarkable growth.Buoyed by stability in public sectors such as

government and education, Austin has also seen private-sector growth flourish. Since 2008, Austin has outpacedall other major North American urban markets inprivate- sector job growth (Thomas, 2013). The Austinmetro ranks eighth in the country in terms of venturecapital, and has been called the ‘new destination ofchoice for venture capital’ because of its ‘organic’and ‘sustainable environment’ for technologicalinnovation (Huls, 2013). Since the financial crisis,the Brookings Institute has consistently ranked Austinin the top ten of regional recovery economies(Friedhoff and Kulkarni, 2013). Austin also secured thenumber 1 spot in Forbes’ list of fastest growingAmerican cities four years in a row from 2011 to 2014.

In recent years, an ‘Austin model’ for sustainableurban development has emerged that emphasisesentrepreneurialism, environ- mental quality of life andcreative collaboration between business interest, citygovernance and higher education (Gibson and Butler,2013). The promising blend of sustainability rhetoricand protection of Austin’s physical environment hasstrongly influenced recent scholarship, which has inturn reaffirmed and reciprocated Austin’s place-basedsustainability narrative. In his 2010 book,Environmental City, Scott Swearingen paints a hopefulportrait of Austin’s environmental future (pp. 245–246):

Austin is growing today in a new time, a time ofgrowing environmental problems and global warming, atime when humans are learning that saving their ownglobal ecosystem will require new ways of living intheir environments. The understandings of this new timehave bred a new cultural ideal, the ideal of building asustainable culture. Building a sustainable culturerequires humans to build sustainable cities, and the

policies and programs of the Environmental City arebased on that understanding. Building the EnvironmentalCity is part of that new cultural ideal, and the sensethat Austin can be a place defined by its attempt tobuild a sustainability city is driving most of thesocial and physical action today.

Swearingen is not alone in his optimistic portrayal ofAustin. Also published in 2010, Long (2010) valorisesAustinites’ sense of place and collective ability toresist cultural homogenisation, environmentaldegradation and the deterioration of its iconiclandscape while Macor (2010) credits Austin’s populism,physical landscape and grassroots creative culture asfundamental to the city’s successful film industry.Throughout the cannon of Florida’s ‘Creative Class’works (2002, 2005, 2008), Austin’s cultural industries,environmental amenities, high-tech industry, and senseof individuality and tolerance are repeatedlycelebrated. In other works, Austin is extolled as an‘extraordinary’ model for sustainable technologicalgrowth (Gibson and Butler, 2013), an ‘aggressive’leader in greenhouse gas reduction (Muraya, 2008) andan innovative city that will ‘most likely emerge in thevanguard of green cities, leading the nation towardenvironmentally conscious and sustainable living’(Chiaviello, 2011: 16).

Encouraged by its success, the city has recentlylaunched a formal articulation of its stature as amodel sustainable city. In 2012, the Austin citycouncil adopted the Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan.The vision statement for the plan presents Austin as itwould like to be in 2035, the 200th anniver- sary ofits founding (2012: 81):

Austin is poised to become a beacon of sustainability,social equity, and economic opportunity; where

diversity and creativity are celebrated; wherecommunity needs and values are recognized; whereleadership comes from its citizens and where thenecessities of life are affordable and accessible toall.

The 345 page document explicitly makes ‘sustainabilitythe central policy direction’, and prioritisessustainability above other concerns (Imagine Austin,2012: 7). A more critical examination, however, revealsa gap between the rhetoric of that vision and itsreality. While the Austin sustainability narrativepresents a strong vision for social equity,environmental justice and affordability, itsimplementation only partially lives up to those claims.

Affordability, inequality and displacement inthe sustainable cityAustin’s post-1997 ‘sustainability fix’ has reliedheavily on Smart Growth principles and theprotection/production of environ- mental amenities.These policies have resulted in density-orienteddevelopment in the central city and surrounding areas,particularly the downtown and East Austin, which weredesignated as ‘desired development zones’ in the SmartGrowth Initiative. From a planning perspective, theseareas are clear choices for revitalisation because oflow property values, higher crime rates and thepotential for brownfield redevelopment. These areas arealso home to Austin’s most vulnerable populations: low-income working class, minorities and the homeless.Throughout the 20th century, Austin has been raciallysegregated in an East–West split that largelyparalleled Interstate 35, with the highest

concentrations of minorities located in the areabounded by the Interstate, Airport Blvd and Lady BirdLake (McCann, 2003; Tretter, 2013a; US Census, 2010).These historical divisions are stub- born, and can betraced to the 1928 Koch and Fowler Master Plan whichwas commissioned by the Austin City Council to enforcesegregation and address the growing ‘negro problem’(Tretter, 2012). Prior to the plan, Austin wasrelatively integrated. But following the implementationof the plan and the later creation of deed-restrictiverace covenants in new neighbourhoods throughout Austin,the city became increasingly segregated, as minoritypopulations were funnelled into East Austin districtsthat remain predominately African American and Latino/atoday (Tretter, 2012). For this and other reasons,Austin has been called one of ‘the state’s mostracially segregated cities’ (Ballı ́ , 2013), which hashad a direct impact on the political representation ofminority communities.

Until 1 January 2015 – when a single- memberrepresentational structure will take effect for thefirst time in the city’s history – Austin has held thedistinction of the largest city in the USA to elect itscouncil members at large, rather than geographically orby single-member districts (Ballı ́ , 2013). Instead,council diversity relied upon a well known, yet neverformalised, ‘gentleman’s agreement’ that emerged in the1970s to placate minority voters and civil rightsactivists while avoiding voting rights lawsuits (Kanin,2013; Largey, 2011). The agreement set aside two seats,one reserved for Latino/ a candidates and one reservedfor African American candidates, and until recently(2013), the agreement endured with few exceptions(Kanin, 2013; Largey, 2011). However, in contrast tothe dominant rhetoric, which suggested these seats were

meant to encourage diversity, critics note that itinstead controlled diversity by allowing businessinterests to support strategically selected candidatesand allow the city’s white majority to elect theminorities of their choice (Kanin, 2013; personalinterviews, 2014). Several interviewees noted thatminority voters regularly felt disenfranchised by theat-large system, and pointed to the sharp decline invoter turnout city-wide since the ‘agreement’ aspartial evidence (from 45% in 1971 to 7.4% in the mostrecent council election, 2011). A study of the 2009municipal elections specifically reinforced this bynoting that Austin precincts with the largestpercentage of Latinos and African Americans had thelowest voter turnout rate (Haag, 2009).

The under-representation of minority voters has adirect link to environmental concerns. Severalinterviewees noted that leaders in Austin’senvironmental community feared the move to single-member districts out of concerns it would drawattention away from city-wide environmental issues.David Van Os, a civil rights attorney who representedthe NCAAP in the 1984 case against Austin at-largedistricts (Overton vs. City of Austin), noted thefollowing:

The environmental argument is a consistent one that hasreally been around since the 1970s . A big chunk of voterswho were for green policies defended the at large systembecause they were worried it would undermine theenvironment. They were concerned that anyone who representedan indigenous, black viewpoint from East Austin could not betrusted to support an environmental issue . Until thesuccessful coalition-building took place that won the 2013charter referendum, opposition to single-member districtsattracted enough progressive West Austin environmentalistvoters to defeat charter referendums across four decades by

cultivating the fear of losing environmentalist City Councilmajorities. (Personal interview)

The lack of minority representation has allowed thedominant narrative of environ- mental sustainability tobe constructed by a largely white, progressive voice inAustin, and has frequently overshadowed issues ofenvironmental racism in the city (Tretter, 2013b). EastAustin has long shared a disproportionate percentage ofAustin’s industrial pollution and environmental hazards(Mueller and Dooling, 2011; Tretter, 2013b), but untilrecently, many of these issues have gone unnoticed. Inthe 1990s, at the same time that some of Austin’s mostpopular environmental battles were taking place, anascent environmental justice movement focused onousting environmentally hazardous industries and LULUs(locally unwanted land uses) was just beginning (PeopleOrganized in Defense of Earth and her Resources(PODER), 2013). PODER is one of the more prominentadvocacy groups representing East Austin, and theirgrassroots efforts led to the removal of a toxic fuelstorage facility in 1993 and later closings of otherindustrial sites, including the decommissioning of amajor power plant located in the heart of Latino/a EastAustin. Their initial victories seemed to have someinfluence on city policy decisions. In 1998, the cityapproved a community-led initiative that would allowEast Austin neighbourhoods greater control over zoning.Also in 1998, a package of municipal bonds (discussedearlier in this paper) was passed in order to fundmultiple improvements in East Austin, includingcultural amenities, public works projects and watershedprotection projects. In retrospect, however, theseefforts have been viewed sceptically by residents, manyof whom now see the improvements as exacerbatinggentrification. The environmental justice campaigns ofthe 1990s and early 2000s were followed by immediate

land speculation and property tax increases (PODER,2013; personal inter- views). Since that time,residents have increasingly felt the symptoms of livingin what had been designated as a ‘desired developmentzone’. As PODER director Susana Almanza noted, everyeffort to improve the environ- mental health of theneighbourhood has also meant increased property taxes,home values and amenities desirable to wealthierresidents.

Here’s the issue: do we continue to live know- ing thatour health is being impacted by expo- sure to cancerouschemicals, or do we get rid of these hazardousfacilities and then take on the issue ofgentrification? That’s what PODER decided to do. We hadto protect the health of the people and the health offuture generations first, then we’ll deal with the gen-trification. And we’ve been dealing with that eversince. And it hasn’t been a winning fight. At leastwith environmental racism, there’s environmental laws,there are civil rights laws, there are title VI laws,there are all these tools. But with economic racism,there are no rules. (Personal interview)

For years, PODER and other East Austin activist groupshad fought environmental racism and the lack ofcommunity inclusion in planning decisions, but as themovement to improve the environmental health of thecommunity gained traction, it was followed by risingreal estate values, increased property taxes and higherrents. Further, structural changes intended to increasethe amount of community involvement in the planningprocess have actually diminished the decision-makingcapacity of activist organisations and vulnerablepopulations (McCann, 2003; Mueller and Dooling, 2011).As McCann (2003: 170) notes, the city’s plans forredevelopment and the subsequent solicitation forcommunity participation were seen by many as ‘not

intended to help existing residents but to create a newset of planning guidelines that would facilitategentrification and the removal of longtime residents ofcolor’. A decade later, that observation has provenfar-sighted.

Figure 2. Median house value, percent change by zip code,2005–2012. Sources: TCAD, WCAD and COA data bases. Map by MAnwar Sounny-Slitine (2014).

Gentrification and minority displacement in East Austinhas become a significant issue of concern since the

late 1990s (BBC, 2014; Fernandez et al., 2013; Long,2010; McCann, 2003, 2007; Mueller and Dooling, 2011;Swearingen, 2010; Tretter, 2013a, 2013b). Central EastAustin (specifically the 78702 area code, see Figure 2)has been identified as one of the fastest changingneighbourhoods in the USA based upon ethnic makeup(Petrilli, 2012). The percentage of white residentsnearly doubled from 2000 to 2010 while the percentageof African American residents shrank by 40% andLatino/a residents by 9.3% during that same period(Castillo, 2011; Petrilli, 2012). In fact, despiteseeing more than 20% population growth rate between2000 and 2010, Austin witnessed a 5.4% decrease in itsAfrican American population, making it a statisticaloutlier among all other major US cities (Tang and Ren,2014). The ‘Black Flight’ from the northern sections ofEast Austin is particularly alarming. Citing lack ofjob opportunities, higher housing costs (includingproperty taxes) and the social disruption of thecommunity, African American residents are leavingtraditionally black neighbourhoods for housing insuburban and exurban areas. A recent (2013) report ondemographic shifts in the Austin area con- firms thesetrends. Ryan Robinson, COA demographer, included the‘Suburbanization of African American households’ and‘Stubborn Socio-Economic Divisions’ as two of his mostprominent trends in Austin’s demographic development(Robinson, 2013).

Housing in East Austin has become out of reach for manylow-income families at a time when poverty in Austin ison the rise. Perhaps most telling, while Austin’seconomy continues to boom and high-income renters andowners increase in number, Austin is also seeing itsrates of poverty and displacement increase (BBC, 2014).The influx of high-income earners, coupled with low

housing availability, has greatly affected the housingmarket, particularly in those areas targeted forrevitalisation. After increasing by nearly 70% in the1990s, median home values in several East Austinneighbourhoods jumped another 100 + % between 2000 and2007 (LBJ (Lyndon B Johnson), 2007; Long, 2010). Theacceleration of home values has only continued toincrease (BBC, 2014). Between 2010 and 2012, the censustract with the greatest rise in median home value was apredominately Hispanic neighbourhood just south of EastCesar Chavez Street, where values rose by 44%. Anotherminority-majority East Austin neighbourhood, Rosewood,was not far behind, with a 39.67% rise (US Census,2014). East Austin has also witnessed increasing rentalrates, and a 2007 report revealed that four censustracts in East Austin exhibited ‘high rent burdens’,and warned that all signs pointed to the fact that ‘asAustin property values skyrocket, affordable rents [inEast Austin] will continue to be a pressing issue’(LBJ, 2007: 33).

Rising property taxes are also a concern. Perhaps oneof the more overlooked issues by national studies,property taxes in gentrifying neighbourhoods are aserious challenge for residents in Austin and otherTexas cities. Texas cities are not allowed to levyincome tax, so the greatest contribution to the city’soperating budget comes from property taxes that arelargely tied to home values (Austintexas.gov 2014). InCentral East Austin, many property owners have seentheir taxes increase dramatically since the 1990s, andit is now common for some long-time Austin homeownersto owe property taxes higher than their originalmortgage payments (LBJ, 2007; Long, 2010).

Figure 3. Austin’s ‘liveable, accessible and sustainabledowntown’Source: Image by Jason Stout, reproduced with artist’spermission.

While gentrification is most pronounced in East Austin,challenges of housing (in) affordability are becomingprevalent throughout the city. Once renowned for itslow cost of housing, rental rates in Austin reached anall-time high in 2013, and are expected to have some ofthe fastest rising rates in the country in coming years(Bernier, 2013; Pagano, 2013). Single family homeprices have largely recovered from their mortgagecrisis slump and sales are outpacing regionalforecasts, leading experts to express concern over the‘critical’ lack of housing in the area (ABOR, 2013).Housing is just one factor that is affecting Austin’srising cost of living. According to recent reports,rising food prices, utility costs and basic serviceshave dramatically increased the city’s cost of living,especially for families (Matula, 2013; Swiatecki,2013). Both scholars (see, for instance, Long, 2009,2010; McCann, 2007; Minner, 2014) and local journalists(King, 2013; Pagano, 2013) have noted that increases inhouse prices and cost of living are occurring in anobservable spatial pattern, resulting in an Austin

divided along ‘concentric rings of affordabilitycircling the city’ (Pagano, 2013). As Long (2009: 217)observed (Figure 3):

A definite pattern has emerged in Austin in the lastdecade. The transformation of the down- town andadjacent neighborhoods has resulted in an expanding‘bubble of livability:’ a high- cost, high-quality oflife district revamped to attract a specific group ofcitizens the preferred core of the creative class.

That ‘bubble of livability’ expanding from the downtowndoes not affect every resident equally. In addition tothe marginalisation of working class minorities in EastAustin, the homeless of Austin, many of whom areconcentrated in the downtown, are being displaced fromthe central areas of the city. Coinciding roughly withthe rebound of the downtown real estate market and thebegin- nings of Smart Growth policies, Austin busi-nesses and neighbourhood groups began to campaign formeasures to reduce the visibi- lity of the homeless andcriminalise activities such as camping, panhandling andsleeping in public (Tretter, 2013b). The severity ofsuch measures has increased in recent years. Adding toexisting restrictive measures, the 2005 ‘no sit/no lieordinance’ makes it a crime to block sidewalks, loiterin front of businesses or panhandle aggressively. In aninterview, Liz Ihry, board member for Austin’sFrontSteps (a homeless advocacy organisation) noted thefollowing about no sit/no lie:

The city’s no sit/no lie ordinance has basically madeit illegal to be homeless. There are 700ish shelterbeds in Austin, but the number of the peopleexperiencing homelessness is some- where between 2,000and 4,000 per night. So where can those people who arenot in shelters legally rest outdoors or take a break

from the heat? (Personal interview)

Downtown businesses owners are now lobbying formeasures that would further remove the homeless fromthe area. Homeless shelters and the majority of socialservices are concentrated within two blocks from oneanother in the heart of the down- town entertainmentdistrict, and for some time now, business groups,downtown resi- dents and city officials have discussedmoving the homeless to a larger facility or campus farfrom tourists and downtown residents (personalinterviews: Allen Graham, Liz Ihry, Mitchell Gibbs).Speaking anonymously in an interview, one COA officialsummed up the situation cynically, but accurately:

We are doing a great job of protecting any- thing thatcan be seen as an asset. Like we talked about earlier,we’ve managed to protect the environment because it isa marketable asset and a public health pro . [A]s faras the homeless, there has been no real economicmotivation to protect them. Just the opposite actually.I’m [in conversations] with [business owners] rightnow, and they want the homeless shipped out completely.(Personal interview)

Throughout the course of this research, severalcomments were made that mirror the above statement,which emerged during a longer conversation about theincreased monetisation of Austin’s amenities andresources. As the above interviewee and others havesuggested, any ‘resource’– physical or human – in thecentral city is being increasingly viewed in terms ofdollar amounts. Musicians, parks, parking space,artists, sidewalks, etc. are seen as contributing tothe ‘lifestyle draw’ of the downtown. Much of that drawis focused on environ- mental amenities. A recent mapfrom the city of Austin highlights this trendperfectly. Available on the COA website, the ‘Green

Gems Map’ invites visitors and residents to ‘discoversustainable downtown Austin’ by touring ‘GreenBuildings, Local-Food Eateries, Cultural Sites, Biking& Walking Features, Rail Transit, Farmers Market,Recycling Centers, Urban Nature & More’ (Green GemsMap, 2014).

As of the writing of this paper (2014), there are atleast 35 major development projects planned in thecentral business district. These include hotelprojects, mixed-use residential and commercial high-rises, office towers and other developments. Highlightsof these projects include a subsidised, eight acre‘luxury eco-district’ which will house

the new $120 million Austin Public Library, and a 28acre stream rehabilitation project (an already $150 +million project that was the subject of aninternational design competition) that will displace anestimated 50–60 homeless who reside in the watershed ona semi-permanent basis. Projects such as these revealthe trajectory of Austin’s current ‘sustainability fix’– one that prioritises the development of environmentalamenities and a marketable urban image over socialequity concerns.

The selective narrative of sustainabilityThe development battles of the 1990s forced therecognition of environmental issues in Austin politicalculture during the same period that policymakers inother cities throughout North America were increasinglycompelled to readjust their rhetoric for a new era ofinter-urban competition (Keil and Boudreau, 2005).Austin’s approach proved effective and has since servedas a model. The inclusion of sustainability issues did

more than simply ‘fix’ political challenges (While etal., 2004). By introducing the sustainability narrativealongside other marketable facets of the city’s growthmodel (musical, tech-savvy, progressive, eccentric),Austin became the archetype of popular neoliberal urbandevelopment – one that merged Floridian creative citystrategies with mainstream sustainable developmentrhetoric (Florida, 2002; Grodach, 2012; Long, 2009).The result has been a ‘green,’ economically successfulmodel emulated by cities throughout North America andbeyond, and has reinforced Austinites’ perception oftheir city as an ‘exceptional’ city.2

Austin has an established (some would say romanticised)reputation for a strong and protective sense of place(Humphrey, 1997; Long, 2010, 2013; Swearingen, 2010).The notion of Austin as a ‘special place’, one that hasemerged because of its history of activism,environmentalism, artistic (especially musical)tradition and creative entrepreneurial spirit has givenrise to the idea of ‘Austin exceptionalism’ – thecritical view that Austin holds a unique and chimericposition above other North American cities (Busch,2011). That exceptionalist attitude and strong sense ofplace has long been evident in Austin culture, and theactivism of the 1980s and 1990s is often used asevidence to support the notion that these culturalvalues readily translate into active civic engagementin policy decisions (Long, 2010, 2013; Swearingen,2010). However, a sustainability agenda ‘fixes’ morethan environmental and economic issues. By mobilisingthe concept of sustainability, municipalities are ableto deflect opposition by keeping interest group voicesengaged in the process at the level of visionaryplanning and goal setting, while allowing the city toretain flexibility of action at the street level:

[It] not only keeps interest groups engaged . but alsoprepares the ground for policy experimentation andimportation. New languages are learned, newperspectives become relevant, new experts produced. Theutilization of . sustainability allows sometimes suddenbreaks in policy direction to appear almost seamless,natural, and inevitable, or alternatively, mask thefact that no much beyond the surface has changed.(Temenos and McCann, 2012: 1402)

Parallels are evident in Austin. The formal inclusionof the language and ethic of sustainability intopolitical rhetoric, municipal office culture and newplanning documents appeals to the major concerns of theenvi- ronmental activist groups of 1990s Austin – agroup frequently described as progressive, white,educated and middle class. Consider this excerpt froman interview with the COA demographer. This excerpt isnot exceptional; it is included here because it ishighly representative of interviewee comments madethroughout the course of research:

Ryan: [Points at copy of Imagine Austin Plan] This issomething educated white people like. And the citycouncil loves it. But they are disconnected from theaverage Austinite. The average Austinite living outsidethe ‘bubble of livability’ could care fucking lessabout comprehensive planning.

Josh: Have those voices outside the ‘bubble’ beenrepresented?

Ryan: No. Not at all. And the crew that con- ducted thefieldwork for Imagine Austin will talk all about howinclusive the process was. There are a couple of placesin it where it is apparent that it doesn’t rep- resentHispanic involvement. And one of the crew – I rememberone of them asked me: ‘well, can’t we make the argumentthat since the Hispanic community doesn’t traditionally

vote, that that is why they weren’t as involved in thecomprehensive plan?’ And I said [laughing cynically],‘uh, well. We could say that. But is that reallysomething that [the City of Austin] wants to say? Howwould that sound?’

The Imagine Austin Plan is an excellent example of therhetoric that is now pervasive in Austin. Seen inplanning documents, tourist brochures, city websitesand developer profiles, the city is presented as acreative, progressive, eco-friendly city committed toall of the principles of urban sustainability. Therhetoric is inclusive, but the city of the ImagineAustin Plan is inaccessible to many residents. As oneCOA employee mentioned in an interview: ‘This city isinfatuated with becoming the fastest growing, greenest,coolest city in the country, and it has created a cultof personality around itself [.] [A]nd that willhappen. We’ll have the greatest city in the world…forthose who can afford it’ (personal interview).

In Austin, a newly segregated city is beginning toemerge. Within the central areas of the city, namelythe downtown, rests the sustainability spectacle: anamenity- rich ecotopia with marketable appeal to themore skilled and moneyed members of the creative class.Broadly speaking, outside of the city centre lies anincreasingly marginalised working class relegated toperipheral spaces, where lack of access to cityservices and length of commute are already contributingto rapidly increasing suburban poverty (Rice, 2013), aswell as increased traffic congestion and lengthiercommutes in the surrounding counties (AARO, 2013).

Much of what is occurring in Austin is highlyreminiscent of Dooling’s (2009, 2012) concept of eco-gentrification, but in a much more pervasive manner.

Eco-gentrification is a critical concept thatidentifies planning approaches that use public greenspaces as tools for encouraging social reform andpublic health in name, but ultimately facilitate thepromotion of financial benefit for private propertyowners and deny access to vulnerable populations. Whilethis has already happened at the neighbourhood level(see Dooling, 2012; Tretter, 2013b), this papersuggests that the degree of Austin’s ecologi- calgentrification is occurring at a much larger scale, onethat is more proportionate to the narrative it hascreated to legitimise its own sustainability fix. Asreferenced earlier in this article, the new downtownluxury eco- district, zero-waste programmes, therevitalisation of the Waller Creek watershed, theredevelopment of multiple central city parks andamenities and the promotion of eco- themed tourist hotspots are just a sample of the major sustainability-themed projects initiated by the City of Austin.Combined with Chamber of Commerce programmes, public–private partnerships and private- sector sustainabilityinitiatives, it is clear that Austin is both investingand benefiting from its popular green image.

All of this requires some perspective. There is littlequestion that the efforts by city offices (such asAustin Energy, Austin Resource Recovery and the newlyestablished Office of Sustainability) reveal acommitment to the city’s environmental ethic and shouldbe applauded. Further, the city’s post-crisis economicperformance has been met with widespread praise andenvy from other cities who wish to copy the Austinmodel. But just as Austin exhibits all the benefits ofemploying a ‘successful’ model of urban sustainability,it is also susceptible to the challenges that arisefrom selective engagement with the sustainability fix.

Discussion: Austin & sustainability politicsin the 21st centuryThe case of Austin, Texas has much to con- tribute toongoing discourse on the sustain- ability fix and willhopefully introduce new avenues for further research.First, the successful implementation of thesustainability fix is predicated on its politicallegitimacy, and requires a widely supported ideologicalnarrative to rationalise its policies. While Austinpolicymakers have done much to selectively constructand promote the sustainability narrative, it isimportant to note that advocacy groups, academics, themedia and citizens all play a significant role in thecollective creation of the sustainability narrative.This paper presents the development of Austin’ssustainability narrative to show what actors and eventscontributed to the local cultural construction of‘sustainability’ as a motivating ideology withpolitical capital. Taking a critical historicalapproach to the origins of each city or region’ssustain- ability fix is important, and will ultimatelylead to a better understanding of whose his- tory,whose place and whose sustainability are beingproduced. Second, as urban sustainability agendascontinue to gain popularity, it becomes necessary tocreate a comparative analysis of local impacts frommultiple case studies. This paper noted severalparallels to other case studies, but also somedisparities. For instance, Austin has experiencedsimilar patterns with environ- mental organisation andactivism (While et al., 2004), as well as spatialisedeffects on density planning and affordability (Rosol,2013). However, issues such as ecological amenity

promotion, political representation in the narrative,and the impact on vulnerable communities revealed somedifferences. In the future, further primary researchand comparative quantitative analysis betweenrepresentative case studies may add a great deal ofempirical weight to the current dis- course. Lastly, itis important to note that, much like Harvey’s (1982,1996) ‘spatial fix’ upon which it is predicated, thesustainability fix is a broad construct that iscontinuing to evolve in tandem with dynamic governancein the entrepreneurial city. As such, it must continueto consider and incorporate related theoreticalapproaches such as eco- gentrification (Dooling, 2009,2012), green subjection (Brand, 2007), and thesuburbanisation/regionalisation of municipal sustain-ability politics (Keil, 2011; Macdonald and Keil,2012). It also must remain open to a diversity ofconsiderations introduced by the rhetoricalmalleability of the term ‘sustain- ability’. As yet,the sustainability fix has focused largely on acompromise between two of the three ‘pillars’ ofsustainability (economic and environmental). However,as inequality and social justice issues gain politicalsalience, it is possible that a sustainability fix ofsocial equity concerns may play a more prominent rolein this discourse.

Ultimately, if Austin hopes to actualise the ImagineAustin Comprehensive Plan’s rhetoric of social equity,affordability, economic opportunity, mobility andaccess for all, it will need to revive the grassroots,populist strain of activism that has been largelydormant in the city since the 1990s. During the 1980sand 1990s, the populist articulations of grassrootsresistance cemented environmental issues as afundamental component of Austin politics, but since

that time, the most vocal concerns of activists havebeen strategically appropriated into the goals andpolicies of the sustainability narrative. During theirtime, the activist battles were viewed as progressiveby some and radical by others, but today they arewidely valorised as important historical events thathave since shaped the city’s image. Even amidst thecontemporary landscape of neo- liberal urbangovernance, it is not unthinkable to suggest thatactivist history can be repeated in order to supportthe sustainable development principles of equity andsocial justice. Since 2012, a verbal commitment tosocial equity has been clearly articulated in theImagine Austin Plan (2012: 87):

Austin values and respects its people . People acrossall parts of the city live in safe, stableneighborhoods with a variety of affordable andaccessible homes, healthy food, economic opportunity,healthcare, education, and transportation. We standtogether for equal rights for all persons, especiallyacknowledging those who have been denied fullparticipation in the opportunities offered by ourcommunity in the past.

So far, that vision has not yet materialised. But asthe problems of affordability, displacement andaccessibility become increasingly poignant throughoutAustin, it is not out of the realm of possibility thatthe contentious political landscape of late 20thcentury Austin will return. If it does, it must beaccompanied by an amended place-based narrative that isinclusive of social justice issues. As PODER directorSusana Almanza noted in an interview: ‘We’ve been knownas a green city, the [live] music capital of the world,and a weird city. Why can’t we be known as a city thattruly cares for its people?’.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to acknowledge Eliot Tretter, SarahDooling and Scott Swearingen, whose work inspired andinformed many aspects of this research. The author wouldalso like to thank the participants in this study, as wellas the reviewers and editors of Urban Studies. Lastly, agreat deal of gratitude is reserved for M Anwar Sounny-Slitine for his help with mapping and data analysis.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any fundingagency in the public, commercial, or not- for-profitsectors.

Notes

1. Please contact the principal investigator for a moredetailed description of methodology.

2. During research for this paper, numerous city officialsmade note of this fact, mentioning more than a dozencities – both in the USA and abroad – that contacttheir offices for consultation.

References

Ageyman J, Bullard R and Evans B (eds) (2003) Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Austin Area Research Organization (AARO) (2013) Transportation Indicators: Commuting. By Landers Brannon. Available at: http://aaroregion.com/transportation-indicators-commuting/.

Austin Board of Realtors (ABOR) (2013)

Monthly Market Statistics and Analysis Report: Housing and Occupancy. Available at: https://www.abor.com/security/login.cfm?Send To=/news_media/statistics.cfm?

Austin Chamber of Commerce (2013) Opportunity Austin: Five County Initiative for Job Creation in Central Texas. Available at: http:// www.austinchamber.com/the-chamber/opport unity-austin/.

Austin Energy (2013) Official Website of the City of Austin Electric Utility. Available at: http:// www.austinenergy.com/index.htm.

AustinTexas.gov (2013) Official Website of the City of Austin. Available at: http://austintex as.gov/.

Ballı ́ C (2013) What nobody says about Austin. Texas Monthly. Available at: http://www.tex asmonthly.com/story/what-nobody-says-about- austin

Barna JW (2002) The rise and fall of smart growth in Austin.Cite 53: 22–25.

BBC Research and Consulting (2014) The 2014 Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis. Avail- able at: http://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/ files/NHCD/2014_Comprehensive_Housing_ Market_Analysis_Document_reduced_for_ web.pdf.

Bernier N (2013) Austin apartment rents at all time high. KUT.org, 24 July. Available at: http://kut.org/post/report-austin-apartment- rents-all-time-high?nopop=1.

Brand P (2007) Green subjection: The politics of neoliberal urban environmental management. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 31(3): 616–632.

Busch A (2011) Entrepreneurial city: Race, the environment, and growth in Austin, Texas, 1945–2011. Doctoral

Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

Carlyle E (2014) America’s 20 fastest growing cit- ies. Forbes. Available at: http://www.forbes. com/sites/erincarlyle/2014/02/14/americas-20- fastest-growing-cities/.

Castillo J (2011) Census data depict sweeping change in EastAustin: White newcomers transformed longtime minority enclaves. Aus- tin American Statesman, 18 April. Available at: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/ census-data-depict-sweeping-change-in-east- austi-1/nRZJD/.

Chiaviello ARS (2011) Austin, Texas. In: Cohen N (ed.) GreenCities: An A–Z Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 14–16.

Dooling S (2009) Ecological gentrification: A research agenda exploring justice in the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33(3): 621–639.

Dooling S (2012) Sustainability planning, ecologi- cal gentrification and the production of urban vulnerabilities. In: Dooling S and Simon G (eds) Cities, Nature and Development: The Pol- itics and Production of Urban Vulnerabilities. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp.100–120.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2013) Climate Change Action Plans: Austin, Texas. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/statelocal climate/local/local-examples/action-plans.html #tx.

Fernandez F, Martin M, Shelby H, et al. (2013). The Geography of Opportunity in Austin and How It is Changing. Kirwin Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, The Ohio State University. Available at: www.kirwaninstitute. osu.edu/reports.

Florida R (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class: And How it’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Florida R (2005) Cities and the Creative Class. New York:

Routledge.

Florida R (2008) Who’s Your City?: How the Creative Economy is Making Where to Live the Most Important Decision of Your Life. New York: Basic Books.

Friedhoff A and Kulkarni S (2013) Metro Moni- tor – September 2013. Brookings Institution. Available at: http://www.brookings.edu/ research/interactives/metromonitor#M12420- recovery-overall-nv.

Gibson D and Butler JS (2013) Sustaining the Technopolis: High-Technology Development in Austin, Texas 1988–2012. Austin, TX: IC2 Institute Working Paper Series.

Gibson D and Rogers E (1994) R&D Collaboration on Trial. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Green Gems Map (2014) Green Gems Map: Dis- cover Downtown Sustainable Austin. Available at: http://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/ files/Sustainability/Green_Gems_Map_8.5_ x_11.pdf.

Grodach C (2012) Before and after the creative city: The politics of urban cultural policy in Austin, Texas. Journal of Urban Affairs 34(1): 81–97.Haag SD (2009) Study of the City of Austin’s Voter Turnout in Austin City Council Elections. Report #4: Center for Public Policy and Politi cal Studies, Austin Community College. Available at: http://www.austincc.edu/cppps/pdfs/ voterturnoutincityelections09.pdf.

Harvey D (1982) The Limits to Capital. Oxford: Blackwell.

Harvey D (1996) Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell.

Huls J (2013) Why Austin is tech’s new destination of choice. Venture Beat Entrepreneur, 5 March. Available at: http://venturebeat.com/ 2013/03/05/why-austin-is-techs-new-

destination- of-choice/.

Humphrey D (1997) Austin: A History of the Capital City. Austin, TX: Texas State Historical Association.

Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan (2012) AustinTexas.gov: The Official Website of the City of Austin. Available at: http://www.austintex as.gov/department/imagine-austin-download- center.

Jonas AEG and While A (2007) Greening the entrepreneurial city? In: Krueger R and Gibbs D (eds) The Sustainable Development Paradox: Urban Political Economy in the United States and Europe. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 123–159.

Kanin M (2013) What’s left? Texas Observer. Available at: http://www.texasobserver.org/ whats-left/.

Keil R (2011) Transnational urban political ecol- ogy: Health, environment and infrastructure in the unbounded city. In: Bridge G and Wat- son S (eds) The New Companion tothe City. 2nd Edition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 713–725.

Keil R and Boudreau JA (2005) Is there a region- alism aftermunicipal amalgamation in Tor- onto? City: Analysis of UrbanTrends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action 9(1): 9–22.

King M (2013) Expensive geography. Austin Chronicle, 28 June. Available at: http://www. austinchronicle.com/news/2013-06-28/expensive- geography/.

Krueger R and Gibbs D (2007) The Sustainable Development Paradox: Urban Political Economy in the United States and Europe.

New York: Guilford Press. Largey M (2011) City council and the ‘gentleman’s agreement’. Available at: http://legacy. kut.org/2011/04/city-council-and-the-gentle mans-agreement/

Lombardi DR, Porter L, Barber A, et al. (2011) Conceptualising sustainability in UK urban regeneration: A discursive formation. Urban Studies 48(2): 273–296.

Long J (2009) Sustaining creativity in the creative archetype: The case of Austin, Texas. Cities: The International Journal of Urban Policy and Planning 26(4): 175–232.

Long J (2010) Weird City: Sense of Place and Creative Resistance in Austin, Texas. Austin, TX: University of TexasPress.

Long J (2013) Sense of place and place-based activism in theneoliberal city: The case of ‘weird’ resistance. City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action 17(1): 52–67.

Lorr MJ (2012) Defining urban sustainability in the context of North American cities. Nature & Culture 7(1): 16–30.

Lyndon B Johnson (LBJ) School of Public Affairs (2007) Community Change in East Austin. Policy Research Project Report no. 160. LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin.

McCann EJ (2003) Framing space and time in the city. Journalof Urban Affairs 25(2): 159–178.

McCann EJ (2007) Inequality and politics in the creative city-region. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 31(1): 188–196.

Macdonald S and Keil R (2012) The Ontario greenbelt: Shifting the scales of the sustainability fix? The Professional Geographer 64(1): 125–145.

Macor A (2010) Chainsaws, Slackers, and Spy Kids: Thirty Years of Filmmaking in Austin. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Matula C (2013) Keep Austin affordable. The Daily Texan, 4 November. Available at: http:// www.dailytexanonline.com/company/keep- austin-affordable.

Minner J (2014) Austin within and beyond the dome. End Of

Austin Issue 4. Available at: http://endofaustin.com/2013/12/19/austin-with in-and-beyond-the-dome/.

Moore SA (2007) Alternative Routes to the Sustainable City. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Mueller EJ and Dooling S (2011)Sustainability and vulnerability: Integrating equity into plans for central city redevelopment. Journal of Urbanism 4(3): 201–222. Muraya NK (2008) Austin Climate Protection Plan. Austin, TX: Austin Energy. Available at: https://lms.southwestern.edu/file.php/4377/ Muraya_2008.pdf.

Pagano E (2013) Exiled from Main Street. Austin Chronicle, 28 June. Available at: http://www. austinchronicle.com/news/2013-06-28/exiled- from-main-street/.

People Organized in Defense of Earth and her Resources (PODER) (2013) Available at: http://www.poder-texas.org/.

Petrilli MJ (2012) The Fastest-Gentrifying Neighborhoods in the United States. Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Washington, DC. Avail- able at: http://www.edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-daily/flypaper/2012/the- fastest-gentrifying-neighborhoods-in-the-united- states.html.

Rice L (2013) Austin: Second Fastest Growing City for Suburban Poverty. KUT.org. Avail- able at: http://kut.org/post/austin-second-fastest-growing-city-suburban-poverty.

Robbins P (2003) The Town That Won the Pennant: A Short History of Austin’s Economic Development. Austin Environmental Directory. Available at: environmentaldirectory. info/PDFs/EBusinessPart2.pdf.

Robinson R (2013) Top Ten Demographic Trends in the City of Austin. Planning and Develop- ment Review Department, City of Austin. Available at: http://austintexas.gov/page/top- ten-demographic-trends-austin-texas.

Rosol M (2013) Vancouver’s ‘EcoDensity’ planning initiative:A struggle over hegemony? Urban Studies 50(11): 2238–2255.

Saha D (2008) Sustainable cities: Agenda setting and implementation of sustainability initiatives in U.S. cities.Doctoral Dissertation: University of Texas at Austin.

Sustainability Action Agenda (2012) City of Austin Office ofSustainability. Available at: http:// austintexas.gov/department/sustainability.

Swearingen WS (2010) Environmental City: People, Place, Politics, and the Meaning of Modern Austin. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Swiatecki C (2013) Policy group finds Austin most expensive city in Texas. Austin Business Journal, 10 July. Available at: http://www.biz journals.com/austin/blog/at-the-watercooler/ 2013/07/policy-group-finds-austin-most.html.

Tang E and Ren C (2014) Outlier: The Case of Austin’s Declining African American Popula- tion. The Institute for Urban Policy Research & Analysis. Available at: http://www.utexas. edu/cola/insts/iupra/_files/pdf/Austin%20AA% 20pop%20policy%20brief_FINAL.pdf.

Temenos C and McCann E (2012) The local politics of policy mobility: Learning, persuasion, and the production of a municipal sustainability fix. Environment & Planning A 44(6): 1389–1406.

Thomas GS (2013) Austin continues to lead the nation in economic strength. Austin Business Journal, 22May. Availableat: http://www.biz journals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2013/05/austin-continues-to-lead-the-nation-in.html.

Tretter E (2012) Austin Restricted. Progressivism, Zoning, Private Racial Covenants, and the Making of a Segregated City. University of Texas Digital Repository. Available at: http:// repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/21232.

Tretter E (2013a) Contesting sustainability: ‘SMART Growth’ and the redevelopment of Austin’s eastside. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37(1): 297–331.

Tretter E (2013b) Sustainability and neoliberal urban development: The environment, crime and the remaking of Austin’s downtown. Urban Studies 50(11): 2222–2237.

US Census (2014) Austin, TX Link to County and City Databases. Available at: http://quick facts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4805000.html.

While A, Jonas A and Gibbs D (2004) The environment and the entrepreneurial city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28(3): 549–569.