Development as Deception: Aesthetics of Gentrification in the Carbon Public Market

Lead Researcher(s): Dan Ian Niño Jaducana
Status: Published

Executive Summary: Carvajal (2021) described development as “equitably improving the quality of people’s lives, starting naturally with the marginalized.” He further stated that it is “about developing facilities small people can use as pathways towards self-reliant progress” (Carvajal 2021). Following this description, development should therefore prioritize the least advantaged sector of society. That is, whenever there is social progress, everyone, especially the marginalized, should be included in these improvements. Indeed, we are surrounded by social changes that may signify development and progress, such as high-rise condominiums, economic zones, warehouses, factories, and other developments. However, these establishments and infrastructures cannot deny that some sectors in societies are set aside in making way for this development. Among the examples of this phenomenon is the privatization of the Carbon Public Market. Despite the promise of modernization through renovation and improved facilities and structures, small-scale vendors face various threats concerning their livelihood security and welfare. On a global scale, this phenomenon has been observed by the sociologist Ruth Glass (1964), referring to the term “gentrification”—the displacement of the lower-class residents to accommodate middle- and higher-class motives. Further, Lindner and Sandoval (2021) developed the notion of “aesthetics of gentrification,” stating that the dispossession entails the disguise of beautification. Gentrification and the privatization of the Carbon Public Market clearly stand in contradiction with Carvajal’s description of development. This paper aims to mainstream the development that Carbon Market vendors and workers desire. I will argue that this modernization is a development not intended for their welfare, but that of the dominating class: the business sector primarily, hence, privatization. I will also include the alternative development design that the market vendors and workers themselves, through their organization, devised.

This paper is divided into four parts. First, I will introduce the case of Carbon Market Privatization; second, I will elaborate on the notion of Glass’ gentrification and Lindner & Sandoval’s aesthetics of gentrification; third, I will situate Carbon Public Market Modernization as a form of seductive space and a development as deception; fourth, I will present concrete suggestions to achieve development from the perspective of the displaced sector. This way, a new definition of development will surface from the narratives of the marginalized class. A development that is not gentrified, an aestheticization that does not displace.