As local governments and corporations promote ‘climate friendliness’, and a low‐carbon lifestyle becomes increasingly desirable, more middle‐ and upper‐income urban residents are choosing to live near public transit, on bike‐ and pedestrian‐friendly streets, and in higher‐density mixed‐use areas. This rejection of classical forms of suburbanization has, in part, increased property values in neighborhoods offering these amenities, displacing lower‐income, often non‐white, residents. Increased prevalence of creative and technology workers appears to accelerate this trend. We argue that a significant and understudied socio‐environmental contradiction also occurs where the actual environmental outcomes of neighborhood transformation may not be what we expect. New research on greenhouse gas emissions shows that more affluent residents have much larger carbon footprints because of their consumption, even when reductions in transportation or building energy emissions are included. We describe an area in Seattle, Washington, the location of Amazon's headquarters, experiencing this contradiction and show a distinct convergence of city investments in low‐carbon infrastructure, significant rises in housing prices and decreases in lower‐income and non‐white residents. We conclude with a discussion of a range of issues that require more attention by scholars interested in housing justice and/or urban sustainability.

As the negative impacts of climate change become increasingly apparent, many city leaders and policymakers have begun to regard climate action as both a fiscal challenge and strategic economic opportunity. However, addressing the increasingly evident threats of climate change in the neoliberal, post-financial-crisis city raises several questions about its equitable implementation. This paper suggests that the prioritisation of a specific mode of climate resilient urban development represents a departure from the previous decades’ movement toward sustainable urbanism. We refer to this new development paradigm as ‘climate urbanism’, a policy orientation that (1) promotes cities as the most viable and appropriate sites of climate action and (2) prioritises efforts to protect the physical and digital infrastructures of urban economies from the hazards associated with climate change. We argue that the potential social justice impacts of climate urbanism have not been fully interrogated. Certainly, cities are appropriate sites for addressing climate change, but in the current neoliberal context, the transition from policy rhetoric to climate action presents a potentially problematic landscape of inequality and injustice. With that in mind, this paper offers a critical lens to evaluate the merits of climate urbanism and to interrogate its potential outcomes.

In recent years Austin, Texas has gained popular recognition as a ‘sustainable city’ while experiencing robust economic growth. Austin’s ability to resolve many of the political tensions between development and environmental protection have made it a favoured case study for North American policymakers who seek to mimic the ‘Austin model’. However, despite recognised environmental achievements, the popular storyline of Austin’s move toward sustainability overlooks key aspects of sustainable development, including equitable political representation, affordability, displacement of vulnerable populations and other social justice issues. Using While et al.’s ‘sustainability fix’ as a conceptual framework, this paper explores the historical development, ideological construction and strategic implementation of Austin’s sustainability agenda. In doing so, this paper moves beyond a lateral understanding of sustainability rhetoric toward a more nuanced and critical analysis of the selective promotion and implementation of sustainability agendas, as well as the consequences they have for social justice and equity in the ‘sustainable cities’ of the 21st century.

No abstract

No abstract