From the article:
...
The problem with the term being bandied about in the fashion industry
as, what feels to many, a stand in for ‘Black,’ is that its literal
meaning is lost, and the word quickly becomes derogatory.
...
If luxury brands aren’t keen on being made available to what they’d dub
an ‘urban’ audience, then one might presume that means its customers
aren’t keen on an ‘urban’ (in its literal sense) aesthetic. Going by
current luxury collections - which often draw heavily from city
lifestyles, streetwear and Black culture - this doesn’t appear to be the
case, which further makes the point that the term 'urban' has been
misappropriated; used to denote something unfavourable. It's the Black
audience that these brands seem to be rejecting, not the design concept.
...
Current offerings from Fendi, Valentino and Gucci feature logo-embossed
track pants, puffer coats, 'It' trainers, and heavy gold jewellery, all
of which are synonymous with typical urban style. But these design
houses aren’t called ‘urban’. The designs flourish in the luxury sector,
appealing to a mass and moneyed market, all without bearing the weight
and negative undertones of that particularly loaded two-syllable word.
...
It's the right time to readdress the word 'urban.' It's current use is
lazy and out of context in fashion and to brands and designers
designated the 'urban' tag, it constitutes a glass ceiling.
