American Cities Push Back Against Trump’s "Shrines" Urban Interventions
In recent years, the Trump administration has proposed a series of urban interventions aimed at revitalizing America’s cities, which he has dubbed "shrines." While the idea of revitalizing America’s cities is a noble one, many urban planners, policymakers, and residents are pushing back against the administration’s approach, arguing that it prioritizes aesthetics over substance and ignores the real needs of local communities.
The concept of "shrines" was popularized by Trump’s Director of the White House Office of Urban Policy, Leona Haluska, who argued that by investing in large-scale projects such as new stadiums, museums, and other tourist attractions, cities could be transformed into vibrant, thriving hubs of economic activity. However, critics argue that this approach overlooks the everyday needs of city residents, who face pressing issues such as economic inequality, inadequate affordable housing, and poor public transportation.
Take, for example, the case of East Baltimore, which was once a thriving industrial hub but is now struggling with high rates of poverty and disinvestment. The Trump administration’s approach would be to build a new stadium and entertainment complex in the heart of the city, a project that would likely displace long-time residents and small businesses and do little to address the underlying economic and social issues facing the community.
"Building a shrine is not going to create jobs or economic opportunity for our residents," said Maria Rodriguez, a community organizer with the East Baltimore Community Development Corporation. "We need to focus on creating good-paying jobs, improving access to healthcare and education, and providing affordable housing. That’s what will really make a difference in our community."
Similarly, in Detroit, which has been working to revitalize its once-thriving automotive industry, the Trump administration’s plan to build a new stadium and convention center has been met with resistance from local residents and small business owners. "Detroit is a city of entrepreneurs and small business owners, not just a place for tourists to come and play," said David Zaragoza, owner of a small manufacturing company in the city. "We need support for our businesses, not just a shiny new stadium that will be a magnet for out-of-town visitors."
Other cities, such as Pittsburgh and Cincinnati, have also expressed concerns about the Trump administration’s urban intervention strategy, arguing that it is overly focused on marketing and tourism, rather than addressing the real needs of local communities.
The departure from the Trump administration’s approach is not just coming from local residents and small business owners. Urban planners and scholars have also critiqued the "shrine" approach, arguing that it misses the underlying social and economic complexities of urban development.
"Urban planning is not just about designing buildings and spaces, it’s about creating communities," said Dr. Sherryl Kaufman, a professor of urban planning at the University of California, Berkeley. "The Trump administration’s approach is narrowly focused on aesthetics and economic development, rather than understanding the needs of people and communities. We need a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to urban development."
As cities continue to face the challenges of gentrification, inequality, and disinvestment, it’s clear that the Trump administration’s "shrines" approach is not the solution. Rather, urban policymakers must focus on addressing the fundamental needs of cities and communities, prioritizing equity, inclusion, and sustainable development.
