6
Reflections on the Day and Closing Remarks
Before opening the floor for reflections from roundtable members and the audience, Bobby Milstein said the design principle established by the planning committee for this workshop was that of “immense value for this work.” The value has two foundations—first, the wide-reaching benefits that cut across sectors and aspects of health, equity, environment, and economics. The examples shared during the workshop illustrate the “different kinds of resources … [and] intentionality” to this and benefits are becoming evident, so value is starting to be defined more clearly, he said. Another foundational aspect was the belief that the value for the work is significant and the roundtable wanted to highlight those who have been doing successful programs that other communities would be able to replicate. He referred the audience to the roundtable webpage1 for resources relating to this work.
In his thanks to the speakers, Milstein noted that they “humanized” the work and efforts and he said that this workshop was unique since it featured those who were not health care practitioners in the traditional sense. He made distinctions about the various individual and institutional approaches and power aspects to change. Milstein made some final observations. He noted that a common theme among many of the day’s presentations was “a sense of pride that then converts into a passion for either preserving what should be cherished, maybe being willing to
___________________
1 Information on the Roundtable on Population Health Improvement is available at http://nas.edu/pophealthrt (accessed June 29, 2021).
leave behind in the past those things that are harmful, and being conscious about preservation and improvement.” Another observation Milstein noted was the economic aspect of the work and the ways in which billions of dollars can be leveraged on a large scale. Lastly, he referred to The Honorable Shirley Franklin’s presentation about “short-termism.” He said that designing with intention and inclusivity transcends decades, if not centuries, and that it is a myth that everyone is working under this short-term vision. With that, he turned to the audience for comments and input. Highlights are provided in Box 6-1.
An unnamed audience member said his key takeaways were the importance of “community-owned processes” in building inclusive communities and thinking in the long term. Rodriguez commented that there should be the understanding that not all people experience public spaces in the same way. Another audience member added her appreciation for the work in the Fitzgerald and Brownsville neighborhoods, as well as in Pogo Park, because they embodied the idea that inclusion is an asset and that equity is part of a process, not just an ending point. Another participant referred to Chaudhury’s presentation and point about a community being a dynamic entity rather than a static commodity. She also asserted that “conduits” should be developed to promote “real agency” to empower all members in the process. Another person spoke of “the imagination of diverse funders and county agencies” and how to be a catalyst for investment. Moore underscored the importance of evaluat-
ing the perspectives and needs of various stakeholders, which would lead to an alignment of goals and objectives. He also commented on the need for both creation and maintenance, including discussions about who is responsible for maintenance and who has the power of maintaining spaces and projects for the long term.
Another person pointed out that equity should not be conflated with mere community engagement, and that systems need to be dismantled to give rise to equitable and inclusive opportunities. Tufte shared her understanding that trust and relationship building is part of this work and that designs need to consider differences between urban and rural areas.
Jutte shared a key insight, which is that health care can and should play a valuable role and responsibility in addressing the social determinants of health, such as places. He said the health care sector’s role in the community gives them an advantage but, ideally, they will catalyze and support the placemaking work of those who already do it well. Arredondo said his takeaway was that inclusiveness in public spaces “is part of a movement … that is organizing.” He said that there is a responsibility to make “space for other people and connecting residents and colleagues across this movement.”
Hughes said that she heard the theme of systems change in all of the panels presented today. Such changes included “who was at the table,” decision-making processes, and funding distribution, and she noted that changes at the varying levels can be accomplished through “place-based initiatives.”
Naughton thanked the panel and other participants for creating the opportunity to learn from each other in this workshop. She said she was inspired by the stories and perspectives from voices of young leaders in the field. A final audience observation came from Daphne Lundi from the Office of Resilience in New York City, who spoke about regulatory mandates and policies that shape placemaking and placekeeping, and what it would mean if agencies in charge of housing or open spaces also thought about health effects, if health considerations were built into all city policies.
Milstein concluded the event with words of appreciation to Hunter College for hosting and exhorted participants to “go forth and make better places.”
This page intentionally left blank.