Placemaking, place-keeping, and similar place-based interventions seek to achieve a dual outcome: one that invests in the physical improvements of public spaces and simultaneously invests in the capacity of local residents to initiate ideas, make decisions, and commit to the implementation of improvements to the public spaces in their neighborhoods. In practice, however, the notion can conjure up negative reactions from individuals exposed to placemaking led by those with top-down conceptions of what a place ought to look like, instead of by the unique assets of the local place and its residents. (Kindle location 163)

In response to critiques of placemaking as potentially gentrifying and narratively reductive and monologic, Erin Toolis has assembled a theory of critical placemaking. Toolis defines critical placemaking as "efforts that attend to inequities and work to promote social justice by disrupting systems of domination and creating public places that are accessible and inclusive, plural, and participatory" (2017, p. 3). She explains that, due to "the contested social and political nature of place, place-identity, and place attachment," such a critical approach is vital. In districts that have faced decades of disinvestment, marginalization, and neglect, this attack on one's place is deeply felt.

Brooklyn Botanic Garden perfectly encapsulates the potential public gardens possess to engage in critical placemaking. In 1993, in response to widespread disinvestment and deteriorating living conditions, the garden launched GreenBridge, a “community-based environmental horticulture program promoting urban greening through education, conservation, and creative partnerships” Rakow et. al., Kindle location 437).

To learn more, click here to go to the Role of Public Gardens article.

Public gardens have a long history of exclusion and elitism, and have an opportunity and obligation to engage in critical placemaking by establishing equity and justice as core principles to guide their programming and outreach efforts. Rakow et al. elaborate:

At the core of livability efforts is a tension between improving the quality of life for current residents and the threat that these interventions may actually expedite the process of gentrification,1as well as the displacement of lower-income residents who can no longer afford to live in the neighborhood. For decades researchers have investigated the role of neighborhood revitalization in the displacement of residents and the proliferation of racially patterned neighborhood change, with mixed results. There is general agreement, however, that gentrification has been either an intentional tool or an unintended consequence of revitalization that has targeted neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and people of color. Given this context, community-based interventions aimed at increasing livability in communities must be rooted in social equity and involve the voices, talents, and spirit of those local communities. (Kindle location 159)