The street life that Davis speaks of in his article “Fortress L.A.” is non-existent. The layout of the city and its metropolis is not meant to encourage heterogeneity. It isn’t as Kaplan believed it that the city is meant to destroy the street; the city is meant to “kill the crowd”. The renaissance of the modern city is essentially a set of enclaves centered on insulation. The “fortified cells” that Davis speaks of reduce the need for streets to almost nothing. People that live within their rich enclaves have no need to leave and mingle with people of other classes making street life null and void.
The middle class have a need for isolation. This need is passed on to the higher ups in power that cater to this constituency. They seek safety, access to information, reduction of crime but most of all, limited access to their fortress.
The need for security has also has an impact on street life according to Davis. He states that security became a measure of wealth. The truly wealthy could afford private security and these private security forces helped to ensure the control over the enclave creating a fortified residential area where people were constantly being watched.
Davis argues that crime also has to do with the death of the streets just as much as the security used to prevent it. The crimes that are committed are primarily carried out within ethnic or class boundaries. The criminal from the lower class doesn’t commit crimes against other classes anymore since he or she has little to no access to other classes. This perpetuates the cycle of poverty and crime only reinforcing the upper/middle classes’ ambition to keep that away from their fortress.
The destruction of public space has to be Davis’ most zealous argument within his arsenal. The reduction of parks to holding cells for the homeless and bustling streets to “traffic sewers” has helped the elite avoid contact with the wretched homeless to an even greater degree. The mega structures of cities are placed at the center of a city and public activity is sorted into “strictly functional compartments”. Genuinely democratic space has all but been abolished. The cruising strips, parks and beaches that were once public property have been relegated to the private realm and street life has suffered greatly because of this.
Mixing of classes has been minimized since places where people do go conglomerate have signals to the underclass that they are pariahs and do not belong there. This type of social control exerted over the underclass enforces boundaries and helps to eliminate the possibility of mixing between social classes. There are the few of the upper-class that venture into areas for fresh foods in poor areas but the lower class shoppers do not venture into Gucci precincts. When the “occasional destitute” does find his way into an enclave he or she is met with strict social and physical control by video cameras and security guards.
The information age has also aided the demise of the city streets. Pay access information orders, elite databases and subscription cable services have provided the elite with even more ways to avoid lower classes and negate the need for travel.
In conclusion, L.A. has become an almost completely compartmentalized fortress that has in turn reduced the need for street life. People stick to their particular enclave even though they really don’t feel any safer than the residents of the most dangerous areas. So, while all these measures have been taken to isolate the classes they still fear crime just as much. The death of street life has been for nothing.
Hmm, do they really feel unsafe in locked away in their Citadels, or is it this fear that makes them retreat into their defensive space, which then provides a temporary respite for their nerves?
while so many american cities are spending millions of dollars to ‘revitalize’ their downtowns and bring back the variety and livelihood that once existed, mike davis’ discussion of los angeles uncovers the darker trend of cities in the united states. as our society becomes increasingly fixated on social stratification and segregation, the militarization of everyday life and the use of security measures as indicators of prestige that davis addresses are creating the crime that people are so afraid of and are deserting the city sidewalks that used to hold neighborhoods together. with los angeles and other surrounding neighborhoods as his examples, davis effectively illustrates how the elitist fears of diversity and integration have created a society that relies heavily upon surveillance and protective ‘fortresses’ like gated communities to isolate themselves from the changing face of the american city. as physical structures are created, the stratification and segregation that the ‘truly rich’ desire to create are solidified and perpetuated. as these physical and architectural approaches to ‘safety’ continue to be used, the practice of social stratification and segregation is institutionalized and carried out as the norm in many neighborhoods. davis highlights this effect in his discussion of the shift of corporate headquarters and financial district six blocks to avoid and escape the 'deteriorating state' of affairs in the old neighborhood. this included the removal of former pedestrian links and the use of the grading of Hill Street to create physical barriers within the downtown area that excluded the surrounding immigrant neighborhoods. empty sidewalks in affluent communities become the symbol of safety as everyone hides in isolation from the imaginary crime that they have pushed further and further away with their gates and fortresses. immigrants in downtown are segregated and left with the spaces that the elites have abandoned while they continue to move away from the newly diversified spaces. the home to the life of a city and the biggest source for safety according to jane jacobs now becomes the most feared and avoided area in the city. public spaces have been abandoned by the wealthy in favor of private, regulated spaces with surveillance in ‘protected’ neighborhoods. what is left in the downtown areas are spaces that were once accessible to all and are now left to those who the gates and fortresses have excluded, which generally includes immigrant populations. davis’ article addresses many important points about the direction in which our incredibly paranoid society is headed. by creating so many forms of protection and isolation, we are creating an increasingly unstable environment and instigating unrest between social groups that will eventually create more danger than they are currently trying to hide from. this article really made me think about some of the suburbs surrounding milwaukee. as davis states, residents of these nearby suburbs are just as worried about violent crime as residents of suburbs surrounding the los angeles area (p. 203). the number of gated communities and enclosed subdivisions makes me wonder just what it is that all of the wealthy residents think they need to protect themselves from. if danger or crime were to sweep into mequon or whitefish bay, would any of the residents really be any safer inside of their gates with surveillance systems and dozens of alarms? do they feel that if they isolate themselves for long enough in their homes that danger and crime will fail to permeate other aspects of their lives at work, school or elsewhere? the ideas that we are able to talk ourselves into are fascinating, and davis’ discussion of fortress cities highlights one of these ideas that has gained popularity and validity at the expense of those who need real protection and resources to prevent and stop crime in their homes.
I think you mean that downtown areas exclude immigrants. Davis speaks of "Downtown as a citadel vis-à-vis the rest of the central city." It "razes all association with Downtown's past and prevents any articulation with the non-Anglo urbanity of its future." 205
In Mike Davis’s “Fortress L.A.” he writes about the downward spiral for lower-class citizens of Los Angeles. Los Angeles has become a place where middle and upper class residents do not have to encounter the slums and people of the lower class. Davis writes, “The freeways allow middle-class suburbanites to navigate the city as a whole without encountering the lives of the residents of the inner-city neighborhoods (201).”
The ideal thought of America is that of a place where people can be of any class, race or ethnicity and still be recognized as a valid individual. This thought is apparently not happening in the major metropolises of this country. America is becoming a place where corporations, not people, have the power.
Corporations are taking over the center of cities and pushing the lower-class into the outskirts. Davis, very accurately writes, “The American city, as many critics have recognized, is being systematically turned inside out – or rather, outside in (203).” What happened to equality, diversity and difference? These three ideals have become non-existent in American society today.
American’s are so frightened by the thought of crime they build walls and fortresses to keep it out. Crime is not as prevalent as people would like to think. Davis writes, “Yet white middle-class imagination…magnifies the perceived threat through a demonological lens (203).” The media also has a very large impact on this irrational thinking. The media seems to sensationalize crime in a way which will result in the irrational thinking of American citizens.
This thinking, in turn, creates a hyper-sensitive middle class afraid of even walking on the alone. While I was growing up, I was told not to talk to strangers. Children today are told not to go anywhere below Sunset. This may be, and basically is, an exaggeration. But, people should not be so afraid of those who are unlike them. It is difficult to understand the world without learning about the cultures of other people. Shutting out the lower-class is not going to get America anywhere. This is supposed to be a land of equality and freedom.
It is interesting, yet seems unfair to me that members of the middle and upper-classes can enter the places in which the lower-class convenes, but not vice versa. Davis states on page 206, “Although a few white-collars venture into the Grand Central market…Latino shoppers or Saturday strollers never circulate in the Gucci precincts above Hill Street.” I think if a person of the lower class were to walk on the street where Gucci is located someone, perhaps and overly-employed police officer, would ask them if they were lost or needed help. This police officer may seem like he or she just wants to help, but in reality they just want to get the out of the apparently “high-class” street.
At the end of his essay, Davis shows how the American city has changed by stating, “Photographs of the old Downtown in its prime show mixed crowds of Anglo, Black and Latino pedestrians of different ages and classes (206).” If we as American’s keep pushing the lower-class further and further outside our cities, we will no longer be a people who embrace equality, diversity and difference. We will have become an irrationally scared corporate nation.
An interesting development is that the Internet is making high-end products available to the middle classes. The middle class are using the Internet instead of driving to working class or industrial neighborhoods to purchase designer products, thereby avoiding the perceived physical danger in these neighborhoods. For example, Gucci Handbags and other designer brands are available on the Internet at much less than the boutiques. And the lower classes can get replica knock-offs in places such as the very famous Canal Street in New York City.
0BE 5-"Fortress LA"-A bleak future for social heterogeneity
The notions of the dual city that Castells noted as well as the enclaves of Sao Paulo are paralleled by the urban mutations that have progressively segregated and militarized public space in L.A. Near the beginning of Davis’ work he notes that “ ‘security’ has less to do with personal safety than with the degree of personal insulation, in residential, work, consumption and travel environments, from ‘unsavory’ groups and individuals, even crowds in general”(203). The amount of actual danger the middle and upper class of L.A. face from the racial and class “other” is so remote that what is termed security is in actuality just social insulation management. This need for insulation is only reinforced by the media’s portrayal of dilapidated urban centers overrun with lower class violence committed predominately by non-white youth.
To counter this fear of the urban underclass, the overt restructuring of the L.A.’s financial district in tandem with dwindling public space has led to a disgusting level of social stratification by way of spatial semiotic tactics. The rise of the Pacific Rim financial complex is exemplary of these tactics. Through the privatization of malls and underground concourses, the life of the street in these sectors has been effectively diminished to the point of near extinction. Since these spaces are not openly accessible to all citizens, it allows for the bourgeoisie to traverse in monitored, socially homogenous space without the anxiety of coming into contact with anyone outside of one’s class position, unless it is with someone from the “third-world service proletariat”(Davis 204). This type of segregation allows one to feel sufficiently insulated while hedging the guilt that tangible walls might evoke.
Davis notes that while some critics, such as Sam Hall Kaplan, see these effects as the oversights of bad design, he does not give them the benefit of ignorance. Instead, he does not mince words and outright blames these designers for intentionally creating spaces that will explicitly delineate social stratification. What makes these developments unique from other cites is that, unlike the restoration of historical neighborhoods which bring gentrification but create elite enclaves as Castells espoused, LA is cutting all ties with historical sectors of the city. This has been done by literally removing means of access to these areas by pedestrians as well as scaring business owners to relocate to the redeveloped sectors by the use of racial propaganda distributed by the LAPD (Davis 205). To top it off, the Harbor freeway functions to seal off the new financial district from the surrounding lower class neighborhoods. While in other models proposed thus far we have seen an intermingling of upper and lower class spaces, albeit in elite pockets or cells, this process seems to want to create a center where one does not have to encounter anybody unless by their own choosing, which echoes the Engelsian model of socio-spatial segregation.
Imagining this contemporary metropolis through the impassioned rhetoric of Davis almost makes what he lays before me seem fantastical, but I’m sure this is due to my lack of first-hand experience with cities of this scale. It will be interesting to see how this degree of segregation will affect the urban landscape ten to twenty years from now. Will cities just continue along the trajectory of becoming increasingly Informational/Cultural monoliths that Castells and Zukin posited, with marginalized groups becoming spatially marginalized as well? Conversely, will the marginalized groups gain enough influence to eventually reclaim a meaningful presence in the city? If what Davis has shown in LA becomes further spread, the chances of the latter becoming true are slim to none.
I think there is a profound effect on all American cities that is not found anywhere else in the world and that is the high rate of decreasing social distance. With these new enclaves built in LA, people are having fewer interactions with people that look different from them. Ultimately, this social distance allows the middle-class white suburbanite to fear the underclass.
Davis successfully highlights the shadows of post-modern city development in his essay, “Fortress-LA” in which he describes the social and spatial segregation created by the epidemic of security enforcements, and the purposeful divisions of class, race and ethnic identities. The disintegration of the city street and the mixed crowd epitomizes the heightened demand for insulation and exclusion. Davis shows us the imagined manifestation of increased danger, violence and crime attributed to marginalized “citizens.”
To clarify, I only put citizens in quotes to emphasize the questionable and shifting definition of citizenship within this model. As accessibility and participation seem to be key elements of citizenship, it also seems, according to Davis, that these spatially restricted groups of people continually lose citizenship with the reconstruction of city architecture found within cities like L.A. The many physical constructions of separation obviously lead to social separation that immediately re-iterates binaries of the “other” and “us”. It’s important to note Davis’ acknowledgment of inner racial and class divisions as well, that further separate us from the heterogeneous model that we once expected of modern society. Furthermore, Davis notes the value of symbolic representation found within post-modern societies, finding that physical barriers are merely reconstructions of political ideologies created by media, government, and other institutional vulnerabilities.
As immigrants find their way to such cities they are unfairly criminalized by their unavoidable, ascribed social statuses, which perpetuate their depravity and push them outside Castell’s “space of flows” in turn, reiterating Webber’s theory of concentrated urban centers of communication, only available to the cosmopolitan. The irony of urban barriers is exemplified when analyzing the economic necessity of immigrants and the political demonification of them: however different these arguments are, politics and economics share a symbiotic reliance on one another that cannot be disjoined by either physical or social restrictions, therefore mocking the very existence of walls and social exclusions in the first place. I cannot help but question the paradoxes of post-modern urban development.
Space itself directly relates to power, and that may be one of the main correlations that explains the privatization of public space. With increasing influx of ethnic and racial identities within urban spaces due to immigration and migration, etcetera, White urbanites feel that their own power is threatened; therefore exercising their dominance via spatial control. This control can be seen by what Davis calls, “the social imprisonment of the third-world service proletariat who live in increasingly repressive ghettoes and barrios.” (204) Hmm, I could go on, but maybe I should save that feminist rant for another day…
But what is a solution to this ever-growing fascination with converting public to private space? Although it’s necessary to first deconstruct the ideals of binaries like the “other” and “us” model, how do we get there? Unfortunately, like Davis, I don’t seem to have any positive suggestions. As discussed in class, it seems the city of the future will continually look more and more like the fortressed city (i.e. brazil, etc.).
We are now experiencing corporate colonialism.
I've already read Zukin, so this little passage may tie into her writing more but, if you look at Davis' writing you'll see that it's not only about fear, but also about a lack in public funding for services that has lead to this change. The municipal police can't do thier job properly, or just don't, and so private comapnies are able to make a mint, with the help of the media off of the fear of ignorant people with money.
Public funding has declined for schools and parks too, which leads to their privitization as well. I'm sure you've all heard of the highschool in which Coca Cola put in their machines and sponsored the footbal team because the school didn't have enough funds. They took a picture of all the students in coca cola t-shirts at one point and a student was suspended for taking off his red Coca Cola t-shirt to reveal a blue Pepsi t-shirt just in time for the aerial photograph. (not much better company but very poignant)
Our own dear school in sponsored by TCF bank and is also a Coca Cola campus, giving the company rights to all soda machines and the soul of whoever agreed to put them in. But what choice did they have when the funding was low and Coca Cola and TCF presented an easy solution? You want a stadium? Here you go, just let us put our name on it. Not unlike the patrons of the past, but now the sponsors want something from us besides our admiration, a place on the board of trustees and free season tickets for life.
ha... a little late to comment on this but I'm glad that you brought up coca-cola contracts. did you know we have the largest monetary contract with coca cola in the world!!!! that's F***ed up i think. especially since they exploit their workers and you know don't care if they die or whatever. i'm so glad our school supports them!
OBE#6 Privatized enclaves are for senior citizens.
OBE#6 Privatized enclaves are for senior citizens. (revised)
Davis’ builds an argument similar to Calderia. Davis is disturbed that LA is polarizing citizens socially, economically, spatially and the local government and the elite are seemingly ignoring the issue. In addition, he states how security in LA is becoming a privilege versus a tax-paying right. In Davis’ words LA is promoting “Architecturally policing social barriers.” (203)
Blatant social isolation, such is what’s happening in LA, threatens the well-being of all residents because it allows crime and hate is spread in a disease like manner throughout the city. What’s ironic is that the government, whose sole responsibility is to protect the people, is the very leaders orchestrating social disorganization through neglect. A quick history lesson; the American government was established to assist the human rights of the underprivileged population. That is, healthcare, jobs, security etc. Regardless of what political party is representing the spatial segregation mess in LA, it’s the government’s responsibility to maintain social sustainability. In a metropolis environment, poverty is everybody’s responsibility. The elite and the government are liable for poverties social disease because criminal activity brews in these neighborhoods. I’m not saying that citizens who live in poverty are socially ill people rather crime lurks in poor neighborhoods. Neglected poor communities simply do not have the civic resources to defend themselves against the seeds of crime. People who choose to ignore or hide from poverty instigate social disorganization in public spaces that eventually will affect everyone. Case example: Rodney King in ’91. As drug relations, gang activity, unemployment and other social issues in poor communities rise taxes escalate for the entire community. The point I’m trying to make is that it’s not in a citizens best interest to ignore or hide from poor neighborhoods because one way or another it seep into their lives. Tax payers should hold the local government responsible for these civic issues. However, when the government fails to do so, the general public should develop a brighter plan to ensure protection to residents equally. Otherwise the whole city will be a target for criminal activity. Or at that the very least the elite will be annoyed by increased taxes to compensate for social disorganization.
Just to play the devil’s advocate, I’m not condoning people who live in privatized enclaves. Everyone has the right to feel comfortable in their home setting. What I’m saying is that you can’t hide from poverty as Davis says, “Today’s upscale, pseudo-public spaces are full of invisible signs warning off the underclass.” (201)
With that, privatized enclaves are a great way a housing community for our 60+ baby boomers. Seniors can freely play golf or tennis. Women can synchronize their water aerobic dancing in the pool without the public poking fun. Retired people deserve to be in a secured environment free of teenage hoodlums and dog barking nuisances.
Socio-spatial strategies to hide from poverty will never work. It’s ridiculous that society thinks if they ignore the problem it will disappear. And why is social contact with poor people so fatiguing anyway? I don’t want to sound to Oprah Winfrey here…but I think it’s easier for people who avoid poverty (based on personal insecurities) versus addressing gratitude that reflects their lifestyle then helping persons in need. The people who live in poverty situations are not harmful persons, just economically misfortunate. It’s when underprivileged citizens have a difficult time finding a place in society when real social problems arise. In essence, it would be easier to help poor neighborhoods versus allow criminal activity to occur with one-eye closed.
In the intro to the “Fortress L.A.” essay, Mike Davis is compared to Friedich Engles. The resemblances to their findings are so unfortunately similar that a person could confuse the century and country of their work if they did not pay close attention. Davis’ work is also very similar to that of Caldeira and her “fortified enclaves”. Both Davis and Engles say that the poor are architecturally pushed out of main profitable city areas. However as both situations are very much due to class issues, Davis writes that is the Latinos and Blacks who are being pushed out of L.A. (along with the always invisible homeless). I think that it is very important to realize that today, class issues, whatever they maybe, are just as equally race issues. Davis writes how the freeway acts as a protector of sorts allowing “middle class suburbanites” to use the city with out having to encounter its inhabitants who are poor, homeless, and minorities. Security and isolation is frequently mentioned, as it is “necessary” to protect the wealthy from the poor. Teresa Caldeira wrote, “Architects tend to talk about walls and security devices as an unavoidable evil.” As I interpret these things, I see it as racism. Just because it is against the law and socially unacceptable to discriminate against someone for their race, it seems to be perfectly acceptable (some ways by law and social norms) to discriminate against someone because of their lack of wealth.
Reading about L.A.’s growing need for a sense of security, it reminded me of something said in lecture last week. It was said that maybe people have a need for classifications or a need for hierarchy. Why else would people want to physically separate themselves from another group of people? In addition, to add Jane Jacobs to the argument, if there are these high securities, homogeneous fortresses, where is there a sense of community and collective efficacy? Those who live in these gated areas seem to have only one collective objective and that is to keep out the poor (unless they are cleaning your house). Moreover, the impression that Davis left me with is that the upper class are surrounded by very high security and a commercial, chain store economic base. Jacobs wrote, “…trading the characteristics of cities for the characteristics of the suburbs”, will not guarantee the elimination of crime. It is important to remember that criminal behavior is not limited to the poor, as the media would like the public to believe, which is what the people living in homogeneous, high security areas think.
The descriptions given in this reading made me think of colonization. Americans colonizing fellow Americans is what this rebuilding is about. I think of neighborhoods here in the Twin Cities who have turned around an area, but it is not because the residences their created that change. Wealthy people came in, pushed out the poor people living there, and rebuilt to attract a certain type of person. It is unfortunate because doing this does not improve society, but moves the problems elsewhere, and in some cases, like L.A., this “New Urbanism” architecture prevents the less well off from improving their lives.
Mike Davis puts a compelling, yet true perspective on the city of Los Angeles. One of the main problems of LA is the continuing rise of the division of the upper class and the lower class. There are a number of techniques that a city will try to create this separation, but the way LA does this seems to be at the expense of others and their surroundings. The way the city officials go about creating this boundary is mainly by getting rid of public spaces and clearly marking spaces where the homeless can and can’t go. This is done at the expense of public parks and space for pedestrians: “To reduce contact with untouchables, urban redevelopment has converted once vital pedestrian streets into traffic sewers and transformed public parks into temporary receptacles for the homeless and wretched” (p203).
It seems as the goal of the city officials was to create homogeneity among the general population of LA. This would be in disagreement with Wirth’s ideas of what an urban city should be. According to Wirth, a city should strive to create heterogeneity among a high population density. I think Jacobs would also disagree with how LA is organized. Jacobs’ theory suggests that there needs to be a high population density in urban areas in order to maintain a safe environment. Although separating the upper class from the lower class is a direct way of creating a safe environment (assuming that the lower class members are the cause of crime), this isn’t a practical solution. The upper class is also capable of committing crimes. Combining both classes of people is a rational solution to decrease crime.
In Davis’ essay, he discusses the general problem of the two classes mixing and how that affects society in LA. The rich society seems to have no problem in dividing the rich and poor. They prefer not to be seen with them. On the other hand, other members of the upper class might argue that the lower class creates a balance within society. The poor may seem, to some, to be in the way, but without them, the sidewalks may not be as busy, or as clean (as they sometimes are found voluntarily cleaning the streets). A more practical solution, I think, to the issue of the lower class living on the streets is to alter the architecture to accommodate more people and to build more shelters, a place for them to live or sleep at night. This, however, may bring about new problems.
I personally disagree with LA’s plan of the segregation of classes, as classes are what bring about heterogeneity, a key aspect in Wirth’s city. People on the streets also create Jacob’s ideal city of eyes on the streets. In general, LA created a city where the lower and upper classes are separated to where they have minimal contact. The result of this has created greater dilemmas for the lower class as they are sent to worse parts of the city.
Mike Davis describes Los Angeles’ west side in his article “Fortress L.A.,” and explains his views on the direction this city is moving. He uses aspects such as surveillance and architectural design as the staples for this movement, which he now calls “post-liberal Los Angeles.” I wanted to use some of his ideas and observe the surroundings I live in to see if and how they apply.
One of the main points Davis focuses on, is security both public and private. Davis says that this “armed response” has spawned an “urban restructuring.” Davis looks at the increase of private home security systems, as well as policing of specific areas as two causes of this feeling. I live in the suburbs and it seems that almost every house has the sticker in the front window, or the sign in the yard that signifies that a security system is protecting the home at all times. People take extra measures to make sure it is publicly known that security is in place at the home. While I suppose there is nothing wrong with this, and if everybody could protect their house I’m sure they would, it certainly creates a false sense of worry among residents. Why are people all of a sudden in great need for full home security systems? Is crime such a problem in the suburbs that you feel vulnerable in your own home even with a security system?
Davis also talks about public space and how these once publicized places have become overshadowed with scrutiny. The overall goal of this project, he states, is to separate the pedestrians, from the urban “street walkers,” or “untouchables.” These people, simply with their presence, create unrest and unease in public places, and therefore must be relegated to side streets and empty parks. In other words, there must be “eyes on the street” in order for the common citizen to feel safe in public. When looking at my suburb in this way, there are some interesting similarities. The design of suburban neighborhoods seems to radiate a sense of isolation and privacy. If someone who didn’t live here found themselves in the neighborhood, you automatically gain a sense of displacement, which keeps individuals sanctioned to driving past within the confines of their car. This is one of the invisible eyes in the sky security systems neighborhoods create. Davis sums it up with his statement, “Security has less to do with personal safety than with the degree of personal insulation, in residential, work, consumption and travel environments, from “unsavory” groups and individuals, even crowds in general.”
OBE 4 - The Frequent, the Super, and the Super Duper Bus
After reading Mike Davis’, “Fortress L.A.”, my mind automatically took me to the idea of the Metro Transit buses of the twin cities and the different types there are. From my experience, there are three specific types of buses: the kind that stops at every or every other block - bus, the express - bus - that bypasses about two to three blocks, and the super duper express - bus - which bypasses far distances of areas. It’s very convenient to those who work in the city and also very effective but the social consequence is the segregation of different groups of people riding the bus together preventing heterogeneity.
Buses are utilized for many reasons like: convenience of traveling distances for a mere $1.50 during non-rush hour and $2.00 during rush hour (for other fares, seek: http://www.metrotransit.org/buyPass/transitFares.asp), to save money on gas, and many other reasons. A reason that never came to mind was for its speed, but that changed one morning during this semester. I stepped out to take the 63 bus, that usually takes me about an hour on average to get to downtown Saint Paul, and as I was heading to the bus stop, a 350 bus stopped right in front of me. Apparently, this bus also stops in downtown area and to my surprise, it took me about fifteen minutes to enter downtown Saint Paul. The strange part about the 350 is that it can stop on Minnesota Street where the next major bus stop is located. Every other bus does not; they stop at the block before. As I was waiting for the 50 bus, that is an express bus, I noticed a 94D, which is very similar to the 350 as a super duper express.
Although all the super duper express bus charges the same price as the other two types, many people do not have the convenience of taking them. These buses bypass neighborhoods and take the highway. Similarly, Davis quotes, “The freeways allow middle-class suburbanites to navigate the city as a whole without encountering the lives of the residents of the inner-city neighborhoods” (201), and the problem about this is the passengers of these quick buses miss out on the colorful variety of different kinds of people. I’d say a noticeable social difference between frequently stopping buses and a freeway taking bus is that the frequent bus has a buffet of all types of people of different races, cultures, and subcultures while these quick buses consist of the same people. In consequence, on the frequent buses, people can accept differences easily due to the inconsistency of people of a particular group.
Every time I took the 350 at 6:42am, I saw the same people, who were mostly business people, everyday and during the first time I rode the bus to today, the passengers seem less tense when they see me as I slowly pass the status as “the new guy”. This world is full of differences and it should be embraced. Despite people’s differences in opinions and beliefs, we shouldn’t block ourselves from them nor do we have to assimilate, but should accept and respect them. In consequence, between these two buses, if a man wearing a fish on his head boarded either of these buses regularly, which one would accept him first (despite the wild example)? Similar to Davis’ quote, “. . . white middle-class imagination … magnifies the perceived threat through a demonological lens” (203), if we limit people from a variety of different people, people outside of these groups may perceive “outsiders” negatively.
The 350 is a very good bus regarding speed, but the consequence is social interactions are far more versatile on a frequently stopping bus like the 16 or the 50 bus. These quick buses are designed to get people from A to B as soon as possible, apparently, so fast that walking an extra block is considered time wasted. To prevent myself from developing negative perceptions of “outsiders”, I take the 50 home . . . but still take the 350 I must admit. It’s a start.
The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.
April 02, 2007
OBE # 6 Davis and The Death of Street Life
The street life that Davis speaks of in his article “Fortress L.A.” is non-existent. The layout of the city and its metropolis is not meant to encourage heterogeneity. It isn’t as Kaplan believed it that the city is meant to destroy the street; the city is meant to “kill the crowd”. The renaissance of the modern city is essentially a set of enclaves centered on insulation. The “fortified cells” that Davis speaks of reduce the need for streets to almost nothing. People that live within their rich enclaves have no need to leave and mingle with people of other classes making street life null and void.
The middle class have a need for isolation. This need is passed on to the higher ups in power that cater to this constituency. They seek safety, access to information, reduction of crime but most of all, limited access to their fortress.
The need for security has also has an impact on street life according to Davis. He states that security became a measure of wealth. The truly wealthy could afford private security and these private security forces helped to ensure the control over the enclave creating a fortified residential area where people were constantly being watched.
Davis argues that crime also has to do with the death of the streets just as much as the security used to prevent it. The crimes that are committed are primarily carried out within ethnic or class boundaries. The criminal from the lower class doesn’t commit crimes against other classes anymore since he or she has little to no access to other classes. This perpetuates the cycle of poverty and crime only reinforcing the upper/middle classes’ ambition to keep that away from their fortress.
The destruction of public space has to be Davis’ most zealous argument within his arsenal. The reduction of parks to holding cells for the homeless and bustling streets to “traffic sewers” has helped the elite avoid contact with the wretched homeless to an even greater degree. The mega structures of cities are placed at the center of a city and public activity is sorted into “strictly functional compartments”. Genuinely democratic space has all but been abolished. The cruising strips, parks and beaches that were once public property have been relegated to the private realm and street life has suffered greatly because of this.
Mixing of classes has been minimized since places where people do go conglomerate have signals to the underclass that they are pariahs and do not belong there. This type of social control exerted over the underclass enforces boundaries and helps to eliminate the possibility of mixing between social classes. There are the few of the upper-class that venture into areas for fresh foods in poor areas but the lower class shoppers do not venture into Gucci precincts. When the “occasional destitute” does find his way into an enclave he or she is met with strict social and physical control by video cameras and security guards.
The information age has also aided the demise of the city streets. Pay access information orders, elite databases and subscription cable services have provided the elite with even more ways to avoid lower classes and negate the need for travel.
In conclusion, L.A. has become an almost completely compartmentalized fortress that has in turn reduced the need for street life. People stick to their particular enclave even though they really don’t feel any safer than the residents of the most dangerous areas. So, while all these measures have been taken to isolate the classes they still fear crime just as much. The death of street life has been for nothing.
Dorian Stanasel
Posted by Dorian Stanasel at 02:11 AM | Permalink | Add a Comment (1)
Comments
Hmm, do they really feel unsafe in locked away in their Citadels, or is it this fear that makes them retreat into their defensive space, which then provides a temporary respite for their nerves?
Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 11:11 PM
o.b.e. 5: davis & l.a.'s illusion of safety
while so many american cities are spending millions of dollars to ‘revitalize’ their downtowns and bring back the variety and livelihood that once existed, mike davis’ discussion of los angeles uncovers the darker trend of cities in the united states. as our society becomes increasingly fixated on social stratification and segregation, the militarization of everyday life and the use of security measures as indicators of prestige that davis addresses are creating the crime that people are so afraid of and are deserting the city sidewalks that used to hold neighborhoods together. with los angeles and other surrounding neighborhoods as his examples, davis effectively illustrates how the elitist fears of diversity and integration have created a society that relies heavily upon surveillance and protective ‘fortresses’ like gated communities to isolate themselves from the changing face of the american city. as physical structures are created, the stratification and segregation that the ‘truly rich’ desire to create are solidified and perpetuated. as these physical and architectural approaches to ‘safety’ continue to be used, the practice of social stratification and segregation is institutionalized and carried out as the norm in many neighborhoods. davis highlights this effect in his discussion of the shift of corporate headquarters and financial district six blocks to avoid and escape the 'deteriorating state' of affairs in the old neighborhood. this included the removal of former pedestrian links and the use of the grading of Hill Street to create physical barriers within the downtown area that excluded the surrounding immigrant neighborhoods. empty sidewalks in affluent communities become the symbol of safety as everyone hides in isolation from the imaginary crime that they have pushed further and further away with their gates and fortresses. immigrants in downtown are segregated and left with the spaces that the elites have abandoned while they continue to move away from the newly diversified spaces. the home to the life of a city and the biggest source for safety according to jane jacobs now becomes the most feared and avoided area in the city. public spaces have been abandoned by the wealthy in favor of private, regulated spaces with surveillance in ‘protected’ neighborhoods. what is left in the downtown areas are spaces that were once accessible to all and are now left to those who the gates and fortresses have excluded, which generally includes immigrant populations. davis’ article addresses many important points about the direction in which our incredibly paranoid society is headed. by creating so many forms of protection and isolation, we are creating an increasingly unstable environment and instigating unrest between social groups that will eventually create more danger than they are currently trying to hide from. this article really made me think about some of the suburbs surrounding milwaukee. as davis states, residents of these nearby suburbs are just as worried about violent crime as residents of suburbs surrounding the los angeles area (p. 203). the number of gated communities and enclosed subdivisions makes me wonder just what it is that all of the wealthy residents think they need to protect themselves from. if danger or crime were to sweep into mequon or whitefish bay, would any of the residents really be any safer inside of their gates with surveillance systems and dozens of alarms? do they feel that if they isolate themselves for long enough in their homes that danger and crime will fail to permeate other aspects of their lives at work, school or elsewhere? the ideas that we are able to talk ourselves into are fascinating, and davis’ discussion of fortress cities highlights one of these ideas that has gained popularity and validity at the expense of those who need real protection and resources to prevent and stop crime in their homes.
Posted by Amber Melaney at 10:26 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (1)
Comments
I think you mean that downtown areas exclude immigrants. Davis speaks of "Downtown as a citadel vis-à-vis the rest of the central city." It "razes all association with Downtown's past and prevents any articulation with the non-Anglo urbanity of its future." 205
Posted by: greg | April 2, 2007 11:35 PM
OBE 4::What Has America Become?
In Mike Davis’s “Fortress L.A.” he writes about the downward spiral for lower-class citizens of Los Angeles. Los Angeles has become a place where middle and upper class residents do not have to encounter the slums and people of the lower class. Davis writes, “The freeways allow middle-class suburbanites to navigate the city as a whole without encountering the lives of the residents of the inner-city neighborhoods (201).”
The ideal thought of America is that of a place where people can be of any class, race or ethnicity and still be recognized as a valid individual. This thought is apparently not happening in the major metropolises of this country. America is becoming a place where corporations, not people, have the power.
Corporations are taking over the center of cities and pushing the lower-class into the outskirts. Davis, very accurately writes, “The American city, as many critics have recognized, is being systematically turned inside out – or rather, outside in (203).” What happened to equality, diversity and difference? These three ideals have become non-existent in American society today.
American’s are so frightened by the thought of crime they build walls and fortresses to keep it out. Crime is not as prevalent as people would like to think. Davis writes, “Yet white middle-class imagination…magnifies the perceived threat through a demonological lens (203).” The media also has a very large impact on this irrational thinking. The media seems to sensationalize crime in a way which will result in the irrational thinking of American citizens.
This thinking, in turn, creates a hyper-sensitive middle class afraid of even walking on the alone. While I was growing up, I was told not to talk to strangers. Children today are told not to go anywhere below Sunset. This may be, and basically is, an exaggeration. But, people should not be so afraid of those who are unlike them. It is difficult to understand the world without learning about the cultures of other people. Shutting out the lower-class is not going to get America anywhere. This is supposed to be a land of equality and freedom.
It is interesting, yet seems unfair to me that members of the middle and upper-classes can enter the places in which the lower-class convenes, but not vice versa. Davis states on page 206, “Although a few white-collars venture into the Grand Central market…Latino shoppers or Saturday strollers never circulate in the Gucci precincts above Hill Street.” I think if a person of the lower class were to walk on the street where Gucci is located someone, perhaps and overly-employed police officer, would ask them if they were lost or needed help. This police officer may seem like he or she just wants to help, but in reality they just want to get the out of the apparently “high-class” street.
At the end of his essay, Davis shows how the American city has changed by stating, “Photographs of the old Downtown in its prime show mixed crowds of Anglo, Black and Latino pedestrians of different ages and classes (206).” If we as American’s keep pushing the lower-class further and further outside our cities, we will no longer be a people who embrace equality, diversity and difference. We will have become an irrationally scared corporate nation.
-Kate Cichy
Posted by Kate C at 11:07 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (1)
Comments
An interesting development is that the Internet is making high-end products available to the middle classes. The middle class are using the Internet instead of driving to working class or industrial neighborhoods to purchase designer products, thereby avoiding the perceived physical danger in these neighborhoods. For example, Gucci Handbags and other designer brands are available on the Internet at much less than the boutiques. And the lower classes can get replica knock-offs in places such as the very famous Canal Street in New York City.
Posted by: Donna | April 24, 2007 10:25 PM
April 03, 2007
0BE 5-"Fortress LA"-A bleak future for social heterogeneity
The notions of the dual city that Castells noted as well as the enclaves of Sao Paulo are paralleled by the urban mutations that have progressively segregated and militarized public space in L.A. Near the beginning of Davis’ work he notes that “ ‘security’ has less to do with personal safety than with the degree of personal insulation, in residential, work, consumption and travel environments, from ‘unsavory’ groups and individuals, even crowds in general”(203). The amount of actual danger the middle and upper class of L.A. face from the racial and class “other” is so remote that what is termed security is in actuality just social insulation management. This need for insulation is only reinforced by the media’s portrayal of dilapidated urban centers overrun with lower class violence committed predominately by non-white youth.
To counter this fear of the urban underclass, the overt restructuring of the L.A.’s financial district in tandem with dwindling public space has led to a disgusting level of social stratification by way of spatial semiotic tactics. The rise of the Pacific Rim financial complex is exemplary of these tactics. Through the privatization of malls and underground concourses, the life of the street in these sectors has been effectively diminished to the point of near extinction. Since these spaces are not openly accessible to all citizens, it allows for the bourgeoisie to traverse in monitored, socially homogenous space without the anxiety of coming into contact with anyone outside of one’s class position, unless it is with someone from the “third-world service proletariat”(Davis 204). This type of segregation allows one to feel sufficiently insulated while hedging the guilt that tangible walls might evoke.
Davis notes that while some critics, such as Sam Hall Kaplan, see these effects as the oversights of bad design, he does not give them the benefit of ignorance. Instead, he does not mince words and outright blames these designers for intentionally creating spaces that will explicitly delineate social stratification. What makes these developments unique from other cites is that, unlike the restoration of historical neighborhoods which bring gentrification but create elite enclaves as Castells espoused, LA is cutting all ties with historical sectors of the city. This has been done by literally removing means of access to these areas by pedestrians as well as scaring business owners to relocate to the redeveloped sectors by the use of racial propaganda distributed by the LAPD (Davis 205). To top it off, the Harbor freeway functions to seal off the new financial district from the surrounding lower class neighborhoods. While in other models proposed thus far we have seen an intermingling of upper and lower class spaces, albeit in elite pockets or cells, this process seems to want to create a center where one does not have to encounter anybody unless by their own choosing, which echoes the Engelsian model of socio-spatial segregation.
Imagining this contemporary metropolis through the impassioned rhetoric of Davis almost makes what he lays before me seem fantastical, but I’m sure this is due to my lack of first-hand experience with cities of this scale. It will be interesting to see how this degree of segregation will affect the urban landscape ten to twenty years from now. Will cities just continue along the trajectory of becoming increasingly Informational/Cultural monoliths that Castells and Zukin posited, with marginalized groups becoming spatially marginalized as well? Conversely, will the marginalized groups gain enough influence to eventually reclaim a meaningful presence in the city? If what Davis has shown in LA becomes further spread, the chances of the latter becoming true are slim to none.
Posted by Justin S. at 12:01 AM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
Decreasing Social Distance
I think there is a profound effect on all American cities that is not found anywhere else in the world and that is the high rate of decreasing social distance. With these new enclaves built in LA, people are having fewer interactions with people that look different from them. Ultimately, this social distance allows the middle-class white suburbanite to fear the underclass.
Posted by Jesse Kortuem at 12:02 AM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
OBE 4
Davis successfully highlights the shadows of post-modern city development in his essay, “Fortress-LA” in which he describes the social and spatial segregation created by the epidemic of security enforcements, and the purposeful divisions of class, race and ethnic identities. The disintegration of the city street and the mixed crowd epitomizes the heightened demand for insulation and exclusion. Davis shows us the imagined manifestation of increased danger, violence and crime attributed to marginalized “citizens.”
To clarify, I only put citizens in quotes to emphasize the questionable and shifting definition of citizenship within this model. As accessibility and participation seem to be key elements of citizenship, it also seems, according to Davis, that these spatially restricted groups of people continually lose citizenship with the reconstruction of city architecture found within cities like L.A. The many physical constructions of separation obviously lead to social separation that immediately re-iterates binaries of the “other” and “us”. It’s important to note Davis’ acknowledgment of inner racial and class divisions as well, that further separate us from the heterogeneous model that we once expected of modern society. Furthermore, Davis notes the value of symbolic representation found within post-modern societies, finding that physical barriers are merely reconstructions of political ideologies created by media, government, and other institutional vulnerabilities.
As immigrants find their way to such cities they are unfairly criminalized by their unavoidable, ascribed social statuses, which perpetuate their depravity and push them outside Castell’s “space of flows” in turn, reiterating Webber’s theory of concentrated urban centers of communication, only available to the cosmopolitan. The irony of urban barriers is exemplified when analyzing the economic necessity of immigrants and the political demonification of them: however different these arguments are, politics and economics share a symbiotic reliance on one another that cannot be disjoined by either physical or social restrictions, therefore mocking the very existence of walls and social exclusions in the first place. I cannot help but question the paradoxes of post-modern urban development.
Space itself directly relates to power, and that may be one of the main correlations that explains the privatization of public space. With increasing influx of ethnic and racial identities within urban spaces due to immigration and migration, etcetera, White urbanites feel that their own power is threatened; therefore exercising their dominance via spatial control. This control can be seen by what Davis calls, “the social imprisonment of the third-world service proletariat who live in increasingly repressive ghettoes and barrios.” (204) Hmm, I could go on, but maybe I should save that feminist rant for another day…
But what is a solution to this ever-growing fascination with converting public to private space? Although it’s necessary to first deconstruct the ideals of binaries like the “other” and “us” model, how do we get there? Unfortunately, like Davis, I don’t seem to have any positive suggestions. As discussed in class, it seems the city of the future will continually look more and more like the fortressed city (i.e. brazil, etc.).
Posted by Corrie Halladay at 12:54 AM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
Coca Cola Highschool
We are now experiencing corporate colonialism.
I've already read Zukin, so this little passage may tie into her writing more but, if you look at Davis' writing you'll see that it's not only about fear, but also about a lack in public funding for services that has lead to this change. The municipal police can't do thier job properly, or just don't, and so private comapnies are able to make a mint, with the help of the media off of the fear of ignorant people with money.
Public funding has declined for schools and parks too, which leads to their privitization as well. I'm sure you've all heard of the highschool in which Coca Cola put in their machines and sponsored the footbal team because the school didn't have enough funds. They took a picture of all the students in coca cola t-shirts at one point and a student was suspended for taking off his red Coca Cola t-shirt to reveal a blue Pepsi t-shirt just in time for the aerial photograph. (not much better company but very poignant)
Our own dear school in sponsored by TCF bank and is also a Coca Cola campus, giving the company rights to all soda machines and the soul of whoever agreed to put them in. But what choice did they have when the funding was low and Coca Cola and TCF presented an easy solution? You want a stadium? Here you go, just let us put our name on it. Not unlike the patrons of the past, but now the sponsors want something from us besides our admiration, a place on the board of trustees and free season tickets for life.
Posted by Tav at 06:30 AM | Permalink | Add a Comment (1)
Comments
ha... a little late to comment on this but I'm glad that you brought up coca-cola contracts. did you know we have the largest monetary contract with coca cola in the world!!!! that's F***ed up i think. especially since they exploit their workers and you know don't care if they die or whatever. i'm so glad our school supports them!
Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2007 09:59 PM
OBE#6 Privatized enclaves are for senior citizens.
OBE#6 Privatized enclaves are for senior citizens. (revised)
Davis’ builds an argument similar to Calderia. Davis is disturbed that LA is polarizing citizens socially, economically, spatially and the local government and the elite are seemingly ignoring the issue. In addition, he states how security in LA is becoming a privilege versus a tax-paying right. In Davis’ words LA is promoting “Architecturally policing social barriers.” (203)
Blatant social isolation, such is what’s happening in LA, threatens the well-being of all residents because it allows crime and hate is spread in a disease like manner throughout the city. What’s ironic is that the government, whose sole responsibility is to protect the people, is the very leaders orchestrating social disorganization through neglect. A quick history lesson; the American government was established to assist the human rights of the underprivileged population. That is, healthcare, jobs, security etc. Regardless of what political party is representing the spatial segregation mess in LA, it’s the government’s responsibility to maintain social sustainability. In a metropolis environment, poverty is everybody’s responsibility. The elite and the government are liable for poverties social disease because criminal activity brews in these neighborhoods. I’m not saying that citizens who live in poverty are socially ill people rather crime lurks in poor neighborhoods. Neglected poor communities simply do not have the civic resources to defend themselves against the seeds of crime. People who choose to ignore or hide from poverty instigate social disorganization in public spaces that eventually will affect everyone. Case example: Rodney King in ’91. As drug relations, gang activity, unemployment and other social issues in poor communities rise taxes escalate for the entire community. The point I’m trying to make is that it’s not in a citizens best interest to ignore or hide from poor neighborhoods because one way or another it seep into their lives. Tax payers should hold the local government responsible for these civic issues. However, when the government fails to do so, the general public should develop a brighter plan to ensure protection to residents equally. Otherwise the whole city will be a target for criminal activity. Or at that the very least the elite will be annoyed by increased taxes to compensate for social disorganization.
Just to play the devil’s advocate, I’m not condoning people who live in privatized enclaves. Everyone has the right to feel comfortable in their home setting. What I’m saying is that you can’t hide from poverty as Davis says, “Today’s upscale, pseudo-public spaces are full of invisible signs warning off the underclass.” (201)
With that, privatized enclaves are a great way a housing community for our 60+ baby boomers. Seniors can freely play golf or tennis. Women can synchronize their water aerobic dancing in the pool without the public poking fun. Retired people deserve to be in a secured environment free of teenage hoodlums and dog barking nuisances.
Socio-spatial strategies to hide from poverty will never work. It’s ridiculous that society thinks if they ignore the problem it will disappear. And why is social contact with poor people so fatiguing anyway? I don’t want to sound to Oprah Winfrey here…but I think it’s easier for people who avoid poverty (based on personal insecurities) versus addressing gratitude that reflects their lifestyle then helping persons in need. The people who live in poverty situations are not harmful persons, just economically misfortunate. It’s when underprivileged citizens have a difficult time finding a place in society when real social problems arise. In essence, it would be easier to help poor neighborhoods versus allow criminal activity to occur with one-eye closed.
Posted by Valerie at 10:58 AM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
OBE#4
In the intro to the “Fortress L.A.” essay, Mike Davis is compared to Friedich Engles. The resemblances to their findings are so unfortunately similar that a person could confuse the century and country of their work if they did not pay close attention. Davis’ work is also very similar to that of Caldeira and her “fortified enclaves”. Both Davis and Engles say that the poor are architecturally pushed out of main profitable city areas. However as both situations are very much due to class issues, Davis writes that is the Latinos and Blacks who are being pushed out of L.A. (along with the always invisible homeless). I think that it is very important to realize that today, class issues, whatever they maybe, are just as equally race issues. Davis writes how the freeway acts as a protector of sorts allowing “middle class suburbanites” to use the city with out having to encounter its inhabitants who are poor, homeless, and minorities. Security and isolation is frequently mentioned, as it is “necessary” to protect the wealthy from the poor. Teresa Caldeira wrote, “Architects tend to talk about walls and security devices as an unavoidable evil.” As I interpret these things, I see it as racism. Just because it is against the law and socially unacceptable to discriminate against someone for their race, it seems to be perfectly acceptable (some ways by law and social norms) to discriminate against someone because of their lack of wealth.
Reading about L.A.’s growing need for a sense of security, it reminded me of something said in lecture last week. It was said that maybe people have a need for classifications or a need for hierarchy. Why else would people want to physically separate themselves from another group of people? In addition, to add Jane Jacobs to the argument, if there are these high securities, homogeneous fortresses, where is there a sense of community and collective efficacy? Those who live in these gated areas seem to have only one collective objective and that is to keep out the poor (unless they are cleaning your house). Moreover, the impression that Davis left me with is that the upper class are surrounded by very high security and a commercial, chain store economic base. Jacobs wrote, “…trading the characteristics of cities for the characteristics of the suburbs”, will not guarantee the elimination of crime. It is important to remember that criminal behavior is not limited to the poor, as the media would like the public to believe, which is what the people living in homogeneous, high security areas think.
The descriptions given in this reading made me think of colonization. Americans colonizing fellow Americans is what this rebuilding is about. I think of neighborhoods here in the Twin Cities who have turned around an area, but it is not because the residences their created that change. Wealthy people came in, pushed out the poor people living there, and rebuilt to attract a certain type of person. It is unfortunate because doing this does not improve society, but moves the problems elsewhere, and in some cases, like L.A., this “New Urbanism” architecture prevents the less well off from improving their lives.
Posted by Ashley Day at 01:06 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
OBE #4 - Fortress LA
Mike Davis puts a compelling, yet true perspective on the city of Los Angeles. One of the main problems of LA is the continuing rise of the division of the upper class and the lower class. There are a number of techniques that a city will try to create this separation, but the way LA does this seems to be at the expense of others and their surroundings. The way the city officials go about creating this boundary is mainly by getting rid of public spaces and clearly marking spaces where the homeless can and can’t go. This is done at the expense of public parks and space for pedestrians: “To reduce contact with untouchables, urban redevelopment has converted once vital pedestrian streets into traffic sewers and transformed public parks into temporary receptacles for the homeless and wretched” (p203).
It seems as the goal of the city officials was to create homogeneity among the general population of LA. This would be in disagreement with Wirth’s ideas of what an urban city should be. According to Wirth, a city should strive to create heterogeneity among a high population density. I think Jacobs would also disagree with how LA is organized. Jacobs’ theory suggests that there needs to be a high population density in urban areas in order to maintain a safe environment. Although separating the upper class from the lower class is a direct way of creating a safe environment (assuming that the lower class members are the cause of crime), this isn’t a practical solution. The upper class is also capable of committing crimes. Combining both classes of people is a rational solution to decrease crime.
In Davis’ essay, he discusses the general problem of the two classes mixing and how that affects society in LA. The rich society seems to have no problem in dividing the rich and poor. They prefer not to be seen with them. On the other hand, other members of the upper class might argue that the lower class creates a balance within society. The poor may seem, to some, to be in the way, but without them, the sidewalks may not be as busy, or as clean (as they sometimes are found voluntarily cleaning the streets). A more practical solution, I think, to the issue of the lower class living on the streets is to alter the architecture to accommodate more people and to build more shelters, a place for them to live or sleep at night. This, however, may bring about new problems.
I personally disagree with LA’s plan of the segregation of classes, as classes are what bring about heterogeneity, a key aspect in Wirth’s city. People on the streets also create Jacob’s ideal city of eyes on the streets. In general, LA created a city where the lower and upper classes are separated to where they have minimal contact. The result of this has created greater dilemmas for the lower class as they are sent to worse parts of the city.
Abha
Posted by Abha at 10:08 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
April 28, 2007
OBE #6 Davis
Mike Davis describes Los Angeles’ west side in his article “Fortress L.A.,” and explains his views on the direction this city is moving. He uses aspects such as surveillance and architectural design as the staples for this movement, which he now calls “post-liberal Los Angeles.” I wanted to use some of his ideas and observe the surroundings I live in to see if and how they apply.
One of the main points Davis focuses on, is security both public and private. Davis says that this “armed response” has spawned an “urban restructuring.” Davis looks at the increase of private home security systems, as well as policing of specific areas as two causes of this feeling. I live in the suburbs and it seems that almost every house has the sticker in the front window, or the sign in the yard that signifies that a security system is protecting the home at all times. People take extra measures to make sure it is publicly known that security is in place at the home. While I suppose there is nothing wrong with this, and if everybody could protect their house I’m sure they would, it certainly creates a false sense of worry among residents. Why are people all of a sudden in great need for full home security systems? Is crime such a problem in the suburbs that you feel vulnerable in your own home even with a security system?
Davis also talks about public space and how these once publicized places have become overshadowed with scrutiny. The overall goal of this project, he states, is to separate the pedestrians, from the urban “street walkers,” or “untouchables.” These people, simply with their presence, create unrest and unease in public places, and therefore must be relegated to side streets and empty parks. In other words, there must be “eyes on the street” in order for the common citizen to feel safe in public. When looking at my suburb in this way, there are some interesting similarities. The design of suburban neighborhoods seems to radiate a sense of isolation and privacy. If someone who didn’t live here found themselves in the neighborhood, you automatically gain a sense of displacement, which keeps individuals sanctioned to driving past within the confines of their car. This is one of the invisible eyes in the sky security systems neighborhoods create. Davis sums it up with his statement, “Security has less to do with personal safety than with the degree of personal insulation, in residential, work, consumption and travel environments, from “unsavory” groups and individuals, even crowds in general.”
Posted by Dave N at 04:14 AM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
April 30, 2007
OBE 4 - The Frequent, the Super, and the Super Duper Bus
After reading Mike Davis’, “Fortress L.A.”, my mind automatically took me to the idea of the Metro Transit buses of the twin cities and the different types there are. From my experience, there are three specific types of buses: the kind that stops at every or every other block - bus, the express - bus - that bypasses about two to three blocks, and the super duper express - bus - which bypasses far distances of areas. It’s very convenient to those who work in the city and also very effective but the social consequence is the segregation of different groups of people riding the bus together preventing heterogeneity.
Buses are utilized for many reasons like: convenience of traveling distances for a mere $1.50 during non-rush hour and $2.00 during rush hour (for other fares, seek: http://www.metrotransit.org/buyPass/transitFares.asp), to save money on gas, and many other reasons. A reason that never came to mind was for its speed, but that changed one morning during this semester. I stepped out to take the 63 bus, that usually takes me about an hour on average to get to downtown Saint Paul, and as I was heading to the bus stop, a 350 bus stopped right in front of me. Apparently, this bus also stops in downtown area and to my surprise, it took me about fifteen minutes to enter downtown Saint Paul. The strange part about the 350 is that it can stop on Minnesota Street where the next major bus stop is located. Every other bus does not; they stop at the block before. As I was waiting for the 50 bus, that is an express bus, I noticed a 94D, which is very similar to the 350 as a super duper express.
Although all the super duper express bus charges the same price as the other two types, many people do not have the convenience of taking them. These buses bypass neighborhoods and take the highway. Similarly, Davis quotes, “The freeways allow middle-class suburbanites to navigate the city as a whole without encountering the lives of the residents of the inner-city neighborhoods” (201), and the problem about this is the passengers of these quick buses miss out on the colorful variety of different kinds of people. I’d say a noticeable social difference between frequently stopping buses and a freeway taking bus is that the frequent bus has a buffet of all types of people of different races, cultures, and subcultures while these quick buses consist of the same people. In consequence, on the frequent buses, people can accept differences easily due to the inconsistency of people of a particular group.
Every time I took the 350 at 6:42am, I saw the same people, who were mostly business people, everyday and during the first time I rode the bus to today, the passengers seem less tense when they see me as I slowly pass the status as “the new guy”. This world is full of differences and it should be embraced. Despite people’s differences in opinions and beliefs, we shouldn’t block ourselves from them nor do we have to assimilate, but should accept and respect them. In consequence, between these two buses, if a man wearing a fish on his head boarded either of these buses regularly, which one would accept him first (despite the wild example)? Similar to Davis’ quote, “. . . white middle-class imagination … magnifies the perceived threat through a demonological lens” (203), if we limit people from a variety of different people, people outside of these groups may perceive “outsiders” negatively.
The 350 is a very good bus regarding speed, but the consequence is social interactions are far more versatile on a frequently stopping bus like the 16 or the 50 bus. These quick buses are designed to get people from A to B as soon as possible, apparently, so fast that walking an extra block is considered time wasted. To prevent myself from developing negative perceptions of “outsiders”, I take the 50 home . . . but still take the 350 I must admit. It’s a start.
Posted by David Cho at 12:12 AM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.