Gentrification & Spectacle
Choose an area of the Twin Cities for a short Zukinesque analysis. It can be wherever you are studying for your paper if you like.
February 19, 2007
March 29, 2007
multiculturalism and public space OBE 5
Cities have become interwoven and so complex, that it is difficult to find a city with a single culture. Notwithstanding, the mobility in to cities by different ethnic groups and with high exception for future success has caused an increased in public space , most notably the prison. Sharon Zukin work on “ Whose Culture” and “Whose City” was fascinating because it acted as an eye opener for me to see the what multicultural cities are built of. In “Whose Culture”, the complexity was how the public culture keeps changing. With this dynamic situation of people’s lives , the duration of a particular style is key to what should be made, not to be made and with a close attention to the quantity. “Whose City” by the suggestion from its name , one cant point fingers at a particular group. These two brings about the multicultural nature of nowadays cities. The two most interesting issues were; multiculturalism and how creates a unique city, with particular reference to America. Secondly, with a multicultural society how fast cheap public spaces are increasing.
Culture is a powerful element of a city and how the city is functioning. It holds certain symbolic aspects of cities that can be easily recognized by outsiders. The difficult issue is that American today can’t be easily classified with any specific culture and symbols. This is due to the fact that American society is multicultural. People through out the world finds refuge in America and don’t return home. As time goes by, the immigrants and their children assimilates certain aspects of American culture and still retains some of their which creates a subculture. Some of the sub cultures found in America today are; hip hop culture, rock & roll, gay, Spanish, and Indian culture etc. With these different elements in mind, public culture changes as time goes by. For example, in the production industries the styles keep changing. Few years ago, Addidas was one of the top selling shoes company in the world but today other names has come up. Take for instance the designing companies, major designers that Americans used are from all around the world especially France. Lets take a walk in the entertainment, hip hop as a point of focus, when it all started the lyrics was cool and descent and major social and political issues where attacked. Ladies Loves Cool James ( LL COOL J), started in 1985 with a hit, the motives to his song was to attack the other Master of Ceremonies ( M.C.) to the challenge this flow. Presently, most hip hop hits are lyrically bad with a lot of profanities, but yet still people love it and millions of copies are sold. It educative hip hop songs are released today; it will be of no profit compare to other. This states the this generation is changing in every aspect today, when technology is combine with multicultural society changes is inevitable. Multicultural societies in my own since is the best , because of how ethnocentrism is fading and people are judging critically and also because these societies gain a lot from other cultures, and it help to developed their own society.
Multiculturalism has help civilized most societies today, but prisoners are increasing rapidly because of crime. The demand for jails today is rapidly increasing; many reasons can be responsible for that. The first is a multicultural society like American people comes from different back grounds into the cities; some are murderers, thieves, and all kinds of criminals. When mix in a free society the start to committee the same crimes. For example, crime rate in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota is high because most Liberians were either directly or indirectly involved in the war, being brought up in a violent society they tend to act that way. Another reason is that competition is too high in this society, people tend to fight hard in getting their jobs or to be promoted, and during this drive illegal acts are done. The need of more jails can be for a lot of reason form drunk driving to sexual harassment. These are things found in large cities and ironically it can become part of an illegal sub culture.
April 04, 2007
o.b.e 6: zukin & culture consumption
‘culture’ has always seemed to be a rather ambiguous term to me. in high school, my school trips to costa rica and london were considered cultural experiences. here at the university, we are required to fulfill a cultural perspectives core. and even at home, many of my family members (god bless them) consider going to the newly opened chinese buffet to be culturally enriching. zukin’s discussion of the changing face of public space is very reflective of this all-encompassing idea of culture. although i’m exposed to the corporate invasion of most aspects of my life, it is something that (unfortunately) i haven’t often questioned or even given much thought. but as zukin illustrates, this is one of the biggest problems with the transformation of many formerly public spaces. the heavy investment of private corporations in public spaces creates certain unspoken but highly visible prerequisites for use of the newly ‘revitalized’ areas. fairly extensive credit for this shift can be given to the perpetually fearful and paranoid citizens that mike davis discussed in his article. zukin states that one of the most tangible threats to public culture comes from the politics of everyday fear (144). high levels (or the appearance of high levels) of security are implemented and funded by privately operated entities in ‘public’ spaces to ensure that only the appropriate parts of the public frequent the space. ‘appropriate’ generally refers to the white, upper-middle class business elite and excludes anyone else, mainly immigrants, african americans, the homeless or the poor. even though this overt racial profiling is not necessarily stated, the covert discrimination permeates these spaces and communicates these messages through the symbols like expensive cafes in the park, ‘decorative’ gates and the presence of police. while private money is often utilized in public spaces because city governments cannot afford to take care of them (142), the influence that accompanies the paycheck slowly eliminates truly public space through the guise of providing ‘culturally enriching’ and aesthetically pleasing city spectacles for those people deemed appropriate by surrounding symbols. even minneapolis is not immune to this shift in public space. although i may be going out on a limb here, the downtown skyway seems to be a pretty relevant example of the influence of private corporations on ‘public’ space. while the skyway is technically a public space similar to the sidewalk, the presence of private (and even public) police forces, surveillance equipment and extremely well dressed, mostly white corporate executives roaming about the elevated walkways gives me the impression that the space is certainly meant for a specific group of people. and this group is certainly not the ‘public.’ the closest things to ‘public’ i have witnessed in the skyway are the escalators entering target, and even then it is apparent that the corporate influence has lifted its grip on the skyway and downtown just enough to enable students and the stay-at-home upper-middle class mother to shop there alongside the businessmen and women, as armed police officers are located at each entrance/exit of the store to prevent any ‘danger’ from occurring. i found zukin’s article very interesting, as it uncovers the levels at which private interests really permeate some of the simplest aspects of my daily life.
Comments
I totally agree...this is my favorite reading so far in this class. Because it really hits home. I am about to write an OBE on it. But I think your comparison to the skyway is very valid. I can definitely see it. The more I think about it, the more examples I can come up with, which is kind of sad.
I agree about the skyways too, and am also about to blog. Since you bring up downtown along with this reading, I have to an experience from this morning. I was going to my bank downtown when I noticed a giant sign surrounded in lights on block e above borders. It's probably been there forever, but it was a supe cheesy picture of a the american flag and lady liberty. It said "Bless our armed forces". All I could think was, "Whose Culture is this? Whose city?" I mean, I understand that most of those soldiers are just more human beings trying to do what they think is good and right but... who is blessing them and what are they really fighting for?
Why can't I edit my comments? What I meant was I have to RELATE an experience...and supeR cheesy.
I wonder what Foucault would have to say about Lady Liberty... Panopticon of Ellis Island!?!?
If your interested...
Hey everybody - I recently read an article for my work called "A Stroll Through La Boca" in the journal Space and Culture. It is an ethnographic study about La Boca, a neighborhood in Buenos Aires, where middle-class Italian immigrants are trying to control the perceptions of the neighborhood through art and narratives - emphasizing their superiority and overall "goodness" as compared to the lower-class South American-immigrants. I found parallels to Zukin. If anyone is focusing on this type of issue for your paper, this might be an interesting read. Here is the link. http://sac.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/6/4/356
Whose Freedom? Whose Safety? OBE #4 (again)
"The fastest growing kind of public space in America is prisons."
Who benefits from the prison systems? Who gets put into the prisons? I just saw "the Road to Guantanamo" and was talking to a friend about it the other day. She told me that there's some sort of new law makes it nearly impossible to prosecute if you have been abused by a guard in prison. Guantanamo Bay is an extreme example of a prison as are some of the public spaces that Zukin discusses are extreme examples of privatized public spaces. However, it's all the start of a trend and none of it is getting better. Zukin's discussion of prisons of course brought to mind the excerpt from Foucault's Discipline and Punishment, which we read. It also relates directly to Davis' assessment of LA. I found this reading very compelling, just as a few of my classmates did. I think anyone who has studied sociology, particularly at a more liberal University, like the U would. I'm currently taking a course about social stratification and we just so happened to cover white collar crime as opposed to street crime today.
We learned that the prisons are built to house the poor, not the rich. Drug offenders who affect an arguably much smaller group of people with their "crimes" are subject to harsher punishments than ceo's who "fudge the numbers" and steal billions of dollars, effecting countless other people, with the punishments increasing for the poor as their social status and income decreases, and the punishment decreasing for the ceos as their stolen income, celebrity(society of the spectacle), and ability to pay their way out of trouble, increases. ( Does anyone follow me?)
The freedom that our wars protect is not necessarily your or mine. The safety that prisons give is only an illusion. Is it not pop culture knowledge and quite a cruel "joke" that people make uncomfortably, that prisons do not rehabilitate but instead facilitate the degredation of those who are imprisoned? "Don't drop the soap." Are you kidding me? That's definitely not funny. No matter what crime you've committed you should n't expect to have to join a a gang in order to protect yourself from other prisoners or even "guards". why is it that when someone gets caught with "ganja" over a certain amount they get 6 mo.s in jail along with violent offenders who aren't getting proper care, in fact are most likely being provoked towards more violence, while when someone gets caught stealing millions from their stock-holders they get a month or less, if that, in a cozy low security facility.
I don't remember where I read or saw it, but someone said that our increase in prisons is a sure sign of the breakdown of "social fabrics" (was that Davis?, or maybe Gowan?) . It's like putting a bandaid on a severed limb and hoping it will heal. Why is it that people get free housing when they commit a crime but have to pay 80% or more of their income for terrible housing if they're trying to make it on minimum wage? We live in a culture, a society that would rather imprison people and label them as "bad" than try to understand what led them to land in a certain situation. Our media certainly re-inforces that culture of fear that uses social segregation and inprisonment to keep those with enough money, and their wealth, "safe." I guess it's the point of Zukin's piece, but I don't feel that I can relate to such a culture, like the physical spaces have become more difficult to feel a part of, so has the idealogy.
Zukin and the Main Street Program: OBE #4
Zukin’s perspective on revitalization hit home for me. I have been thinking about these issues a lot lately and this reading has helped me to organize some of my thoughts. As an interior design major, I hear a lot about how the design of space can control behavior. However, aside from one studio course that focused on culturally-sensitive housing, I have not heard a lot about how the design of space can control cultural perceptions. The more I think about it, the more I see it as being very true. In the following paragraphs I will discuss the Main Street Program, which is an initiative of the National Trust of Historic Preservation to help revitalize neighborhoods. The program is one of the “gentrification, historic preservation…cultural strategies” Zukin discussed (144). As someone who has been interested in historic preservation for a long time, I originally had found this initiative to be an exciting one. However, recently I have questioned what exactly it contributes to cities and if ALL the citizens of the cities which implement it are really better off in the long run.
Basically, the Main Street Program is an initiative that aids city officials in combining historic preservation with economic development in order to revitalize a deflated commercial district. Now, first, I should give credit where credit is due. The program does promote, among other things, local ownership, pedestrian-friendly streets, and community development, which I think are all good, important components. And to be perfectly honest, I would not mind spending a nice summer day in one of these areas, sitting at a café (with a quaint historical façade), sipping a latte, and people-watching. The problem is, when I envision this scenario in my head, I see all the same people walking by. I see middle-class, white Americans who are spending their afternoon happily perusing the streets that take them back to a simpler time in American history. And the homeless people and lower class that used to live in the same area, well, they are no where to be seen.
I think it is very possible that what the Main Street Program does is use “culture as an economic base” (140). It is a way for the powers-that-be in the city to “stamp a collective identity” (138) on the city, that reflects the ideals and history of the white, middle-class, but nobody else and helps the city become more economically stable while doing it. Preserving the city to what may have been a simpler, happier time for Caucasians may mean preserving it to a time that was tainted by discrimination and injustice for African Americans and immigrants.
Zukin discusses “public culture” as being “socially constructed on the micro-level.” She explains that the daily encounters in the “streets, shops, and parks” are ways in which one experiences this culture and is able to invest them self into the city and claim it as their own (139). With the Main Street program, a select number of people have the opportunity to do this. As for everybody else, they are most likely scared away by the “aesthetics of fear (140)” - the police that are no-doubt abundant on the revitalized Main Street, the overabundance of the middle-class, and the central spaces (e.g., parks) that reaffirm the control of this class over the city.
In conclusion, I do not think this structure works well for revitalizing cities inside-out. It revitalizes them at one level, and leaves the others more ostracized than they were before.
Comments
I agree with you that this reading by far is a very interesting one and it is also my most favorite piece.
I'm glad you pointed the issue of gentrification out with the main-street program. I seldom hear about programs that aim for the interests of minorities and the marginalized. And even if there were programs set in place for the interests of minorities and the marginalized, it really has no monetary incentive for city officials or city developers if the population they're serving are lower-income individuals who can't afford the rent of these 'revitalized' hoods, who can't afford the increase in property taxes because of the 'revitalization', etc....
.....I don't understand why so many organizations and developers think that revitalizing a bad hood would do justice to a community when it just displaces the people within it. Sure, the revitalization looks great physically, but what about solving the social issues within that community along with the physical revitalization?
OBE 5 - Zukin "Whose Culture? Whose City?"
The “public arena” is forever shrinking in many large cities throughout the world with the help of globalization. However, I would agree with Zukin that the shrinking realm of the public sphere is happening at a much faster rate in the US. It is very apparent in Zukin’s writing that there is “loss of meaningful public life under the control of inclusive, democratic forces that creeping privatization implies” (Zukin 136).
I have to admit, Zukin is one of the first writers that we have read about that has seriously challenged me. She really makes one pull back the façade surrounding our society to get to the nitty gritty parts of social interaction, especially in the US. I was especially taken back from her opening quote, “We who live in cities like to think of ‘culture’ as the antidote to this crass vision. The Acropolis of the urban art museum or concert hall, the trendy art gallery and café, restaurants that fuse ethnic traditions into culinary logos – cultural activities are supposed to lift us out of the mire of our everyday lives and into the sacred spaces of ritualized pleasures” (137).
Personally, as I look around Minneapolis, I feel as though I am Zukin. I see “cultural events” taking place around Minneapolis. Take the Guthrie Theater or the Minnesota Orchestra for example. Only those that are supposed to be partaking in this “culture” come from wealthy backgrounds; it is in Zukin’s writing, “culture is a powerful means of controlling cities; as a source of images and memories, it symbolizes ‘who belongs’ in specific places” (137). The location of the Guthrie and the Orchestra building alone speaks to the cliental. The location of both, tucked amidst condos, gives a real sense at who should be attending the events – those fortunate enough to have enough money to live in the area or have a vehicle to bring them to the location.
In her writing, Zukin has a sub-section entitled, “The Symbolic Economy.” It is here where she writes of her disapproval of the entrepreneurial capital taking over public places. In New York City, for example, several public parks have been taken over by non-profit business associations that “secure” the park. It is through this security that enables the middle-class whites to feel safe in a park that was once littered with homeless persons. Prior to this, the middle-class whites thought that the area was dangerous, probably because they kept their social distance. This is one cause of the loss of public space, the fear that is installed in us who live in the US; we are constantly engrained to fear what we don’t know and treat it as completely wrong!
As for public space, yes, it is still true today that the fastest growing kind of public space in America is prisons; however, did you know the simple fact that the prison industry is in fact a private business. Here again, our society contracts out to the private sector to keep people safe. The middle-class voters get to elect people who will set laws to lock up the underclass, providing jobs for the middle-class in the prison system.
On a side note, I feel that we have no public space in this American society. Every courtyard has a corporate logo on it and everyday we as Americans are bombarded with over 4,000 advertisements per day! Something that is just engrained into our social fabric of society.
Comments
I never thought about the Guthrie Theater or the Minnesota Orchestra as public spaces outside my cultural identity until you just mentioned it. I imagine women in furcoats, men with monocals, and people using those binoculars attached to sticks walking into those places. So I was deterred simply by my perception of my culture in comparison to who I thought utilized those public spaces.
Jesse and Tim, I agree!! I never thought about not being able to go some place like the Guthrie would put up such a barrier. But it is very true!
April 05, 2007
OBE: ...Whose Community?
In her “Whose Culture? Whose City?” Sharon Zukin discusses how public space drives cultural consumption, i.e., the subscription to and use of cultural artifacts. Her main concern is that often “public space” is controlled privately, be it by stewardship or ownership. Zukin thinks that the “culture industry,” and its attendant symbolic economy, are conflated with micro-constructed public culture. This is often done intentionally as a marketing schema; Zukin cites the idea of social strain and the need for justice being absorbed and reframed to represent a need for a particular product. Basically, the mechanism behind this is that if public space is the stage upon which we form our culture, and to a degree our collective identities, then areas that are presented as public but are actually controlled semi-privately are loci for artificial culture, i.e. cultural consumption, cultural control, etc. This is based on the fact that the private controllers can decide who can use the space, when, and in what capacity, i.e., artificially shape the public.
Zukin’s ideas about cultural production are interesting to me because they somewhat connect with my paper topic. My topic is about the conjunction of gay neighborhoods, i.e. geographic areas, and the gay community, i.e. the totality of gay people in an area. This idea as it is painted by Zukin as somewhat nefarious, but the principles behind it can help to explain how the gay community settles into a gay neighborhood. Because homosexuality is a target identity, i.e. an identity which is often under scrutiny and brings the user persecution, it is more prone to creating collective identity. This collective identity is in turn especially salient to individual gay men, and after a legacy of exclusion and prejudice, any hint of inclusion and acceptance is particularly noticeable. Gay bars are an example of artifacts of Zukin’s culture industry. Gay bars are created to echo the aspects of the collective identity, i.e., gay sub-culture, that resonate in gay men, effectively saying “you are included here, you are wanted here, and you are part of here.” This subculture has been adopted by the private proprietors of the bar and fed to gay culture consumers.
obe-technical difficulty
wrote an obe on this but for some reason i can't get my word document to pull up... will keep trying...?
Whose Culture? Whose Toilet?
In her article, “Whose culture, whose city?” Zukin discusses the concept of public space being owned privately. These public spaces thus being funded privately, the private organizations use the public space to generate profit through commercialization. This is described by her as the commercialization of culture. This is achieved through cultural symbols that are used for marketing purposes (i.e. cookie cutter museums). She notes that the benefits of this privatization of public spare are cleaner parks, safer environments, and overall restoration of decrepit, abandoned space. Zukin notes that the drawbacks of privately funded public space are the creation of exclusivity, reduction of freedom, and unauthentic cultural replicas. Additionally, Zukin speaks of culture as symbolizing “…’who belongs’ in specific places.”(137). This is applicable to people feeling like there are public spaces available, but they are tailored for a specific type of person that they are not.
This concept of public space being off limits due to personal identification struck me as very interesting. I have seen plenty of places that are public places where I simply haven’t thought I would belong. Take for instance the library with a coffee shop attached. I feel more than welcome in a library, as I have been taught to use them for studying since childhood. You see dozens of people with books stacked above their head, nose buried in their studies. Then take the coffee shop, where I don’t feel nearly as comfortable. I see a cultural scene taking place, and it is of people on their laptops, sipping mocha lattes and reading the newspaper. Intellectual types, if you will (you all know who you are). I don’t have the same sling laptop book bag, pea-coat, scarf, or liberal disposition as all these people, so I do not feel like it is ‘my culture.’ Just the same, these people may not feel comfortable at a public park playing football, because it may not be ‘their culture.’ There is nothing holding anyone back from accessing these public spaces besides their own personal perception of their ‘culture.’
Just the same someone could see the entire city as a public space. A suburbanite who is used to driving on their mostly quiet and empty streets may not consider the bustling and noisy streets of the city to be within the realm of their ‘culture.’ I give a nod in the direction of Dave’s research report regarding the teenage gamer warning another that a LAN party was taking place in the city, and he was “not sure if (he wanted) to risk heading over.” This is a clear example of someone not feeling that the city life is within their culture.
Another example of public space becoming more commercial due to ownership by private organizations is the Minnesota State Fair. I remember from my childhood that I was once able to use a public restroom without being annihilated by advertising. This all changed when the state fair receiving a slew of “good restrooms.” These were a sharp departure from the disgusting, dilapidated, unkempt restrooms the state fair was used to. These restrooms actually generated some buzz because of how clean they were compared to the others. As I walked in, even as a child, I quickly noticed the sheer quantity of Charmin logos emblazoned everywhere. There were even TVs playing Charmin commercials inside of the bathroom, reminding of what you were using when you were all finished. So the benefit was that these bathrooms were pristine, probably due in part to the sponsorship of Charmin. Although they were clean, dare I say that they eliminated an aspect of the restroom as a public space? People were too busy watching commercials to even nod to each other, and the stall walls were no longer open forums for anyone toting a permanent marker or knife in their pocket. Another public space foiled by privatization!
Tim Turi
Comments
Heck yeah!
And what about those pay toilets in Europe- maybe a better solution?
At least the U has finally gone a bit more socially minded in now offering free tampons and pads in the women's restroom. You may not understand, Tim, but for women, having to buy tampons or pads sold by private companies in the bathrooms as we always have, is like being asked to buy toilet paper in a public bathroom.
Tavia, Great comment and Tim, I really like your ideas!! Although, after having worked at the State Fair and even staying on the grounds for an entire three weeks (I work at the 4-H building) I know for a fact that most of the restrooms are not that clean. So advertisement pays for what? But I could probably tell you where every public bathroom is on that State Fair grounds including which ones I will use, and which ones I will not!
OBE# 4 Zukin and Capitalization of Culture
“Cultural institutions establish a competitive advantage over other cities for attracting new businesses and corporate elites. Culture suggests the coherence and consistency of a brand name product.” (Zukin, 140A).
Charmin. Polo. DG. Apple Jacks. The brand names all imply that they’re special over the generic brands and the advertisements explicitly state that you’ve got to have it or else you’re not cool. Maybe it’s the way they advertise the products or that I assume that they’re better. Tying the word, concept, reality, and ideology behind “culture” and tying that to a familiar and ‘notable’ city, it creates a similar effect of nostalgia to me like that of brand names by ‘having it’ by traveling there to be consumed by it which is clear to me that I’m “buying into” the notion that it is a better place to see over other cities because it’s branded with “culture.” And whenever I see the aesthetics of culture fused into interior design, architecture, fashion, on billboards and magazines that incorporate models of different races and ethnicities, or hear about policies being set in place for peoples of different ‘cultures’ (ethnicities, races, etc.) I “ooh” and “ahh” over how great it is to see differences incorporated in all spheres of life and art. I am completely gaga about it all, but never questioned the means in which culture has been used and how it creates somewhat of a “bohemian” effect on me when it comes to NYC, DC, San Fran, and other places I find to be attractive cultural cities. Reading Zukin’s article reminded me of the Bohemians in Stansell’s “Bohemian Beginnings in the 1890s” when she spoke of ‘culture as an economic base’ and the ‘symbolic economy’ with both articles drawing on the notion of the capitalization of culture and it makes me assume how the capitalization of culture makes certain cities marketable and alluring, like the Twin Cities as being “one of the best cities to live in.”
Cities in the last century have been welcoming in multitudes of ethnic minorities from different races and of different colors, other than white Americans and ethnic whites. With an influx of colored ethnic minorities, cities have adapted to the changes of populations by rearranging the use of space and capitalizing on the cultures of many, and when I say many, I’m not being exclusive to colored ethnic minority cultures but also cultures of other social groups (gay culture, urban culture, etc.). When the “bourgeoisie” couldn’t capitalize on the labor of men and physical labor, they innovated a new means to increase their wealth and to “stamp a collective identity” by capitalizing on the cultures of many (gay culture, urban culture, “the Orient,” the zen garden, etc.) because of the influx of new ethic minorities and the flux of new “cultures.” For example, “styles that develop on the streets are cycled through mass media, especially fashion and ‘urban music’ magazines and MTV, where, divorced from their social context, they become images of cool” (Zukin, 139A).
...to.be.continued.......for revision.
April 10, 2007
Street art and artist....no we don't want any of your money
Concepts of beauty and art have had a history of being individual
perceptions and the basis of human expressionism. Between philosophers and
artist there is a running debate as to what art can and cannot be, and what
function art has in human life. From Surrealism to Dadaism ideas that focus
on the subconscious or the notion of art for arts sake, find little in
common with society and how art exist within the social and economic
structure in which we set up. Many existentialist look at art and poetry as
the source for people to obtain individuality and gain enlightenment, as
Ortega states in his piece "Man Has No Nature" the idea of "man is
impossible without imagination, without the capacity to invent himself a
conception of life." Therefore art becomes a project of existence for
artist, but society has not set up ways for this type of existence. While
our economy and private companies have begun to shape cities and public
space. This has ultimately led to the shaping of a society less focused on
individuality and expressionism, and more focused on prices, commodities,
and political correctness. Thus, private companies are blocking means of
communication artistically and creating a reality that seems to collide
directly with concepts of art and philosophy.
One major issue that seems to marginalize and categorize art and artist is
the institutionalization of the museum. While the concept of a museum is
very conducive for the spread of ideas artistically, the society in which
these museums exist, present problems that undermine many aspects of how
and why humans make art. With reduced funding from the government and
corporations, many museums are faced with budget problems that create a
conflict of interest between showing art and making money. There are more
and more museums charging an entrance fee and creating other small
businesses inside, such as gift shops and restaurants, therefore the museum
is taking on a more active role with focus placed on whoring out the art to
make money. Consequently this creates a world where money can buy you
culture or in a sense make you more cultured, rather than focusing on
individuality and expression. This creates a reality for art to be consumed
by people and seems to negate the social context of when and why a painting
was made.
With the set up the large museums, cities seem to focus on the art that
fits within the museum as a product to establish culture and identity. The
consequence of these actions creates a society who sees art only within a
museum context and negates other forms of graffiti, poster making, and
public performances. With more and more of our public spaces becoming
filled up with billboards, signs, and neon lights one must question the
control of the corporations, as they control what signs and advertisements
we see each day. The notion of street art seems to work around this
privatization of public spaces, by becoming embedded into the urban
landscape and basically negates the notion that art can only exist within a
museum setting. Street art can therefore stand as the act of human
expression, untainted by thoughts of capitalism and consumerism as in most
cases the product cannot be sold or moved. Furthermore street art seems to
directly undermine who has the right to show what, within an urban
community and allows for the spread of ideas that are generated locally,
not from a national advertising campaign.
One issue within our society is the concept of "high" art and how it
functions socially. While I am not trying to say that art in museums is bad
in any way, it seems that people are more focused on art that is in
museums, because it exists in the socially accepted place, and has been
deemed by the institutionalized museum as being good. This creates social
normative that seem to link good art only within the context of museums.
The only problem with this, Like I said before with more and more economic
pressure museums are forced to create exhibits that are "crowd pleasing,"
and generic. These economic and social forces combine to make street art
not only stigmatized as a destructive force, but also as an illegitimate
art form. In contrast in many works street art has the ability to convey an
individual’s ideas, while profiting no one and existing as art for art's
sake. Therefore street art seems to create a voice for those who have
chosen to create their existence as an artist, while creating opportunities
for sharing these ideas as an alternate chanel of communications within a
city or neighborhood.
Fundamentally the title of Zukin's article seems to answer why street art
is made. With the notion of public spaces loosing any sort of individuality,
street artists focus on bringing back life to places we live in. The
corporate takeover and privatization of cities have left many of public
places bland with no focus of expressing any identity. Rather we are faced
with an onslaught of advertisements, storefronts, and concrete wastelands
that create a feeling of a robotic human race focusing on consuming
products and culture. When I see graffiti, I note the individual’s act of
making marks that arise out of expressionism. It gives me the sense that this
world is filled with individuals who focus on creating art, but not
interested in generating a profit. Street art comes to change the notion of
coloring in side the lines and blows it away to coloring off the paper and into
the street. Unconcerned with profit or longevity these works stand as a voice
and a source of communication within a world of corporate and privatized space.
click on the link to see some examples of street art....
Continue reading "Street art and artist....no we don't want any of your money" »
April 12, 2007
Components of Neighborhoods diagram
"Strong Neighborhoods: Their Importance for Regional Vitality - August 1992, Metropolitan Council"
~Kat
Neighborhoods: A Complex Web of Interconnections
"Strong Neighborhoods: Their Importance for Regional Vitality - August 1992, Metropolitan Council"
~Kat
Comments
This is very complex, yet impressive. To think that there are that many components to our lives within our neighborhoods! Yet, do we truely experiance everything, especially on a day-to-day basis?
I wish I had looked at this closer about 2 weeks ago... ha. The neighborhood vitality is so right, there's so much going on there, but it all influences the funtionings of the commmunity and how interactions take place. thanks for posting!
April 24, 2007
OBE 6:::Where Do I Fit In?
In Sharon Zukin’s work, “Whose Culture? Whose City?” she writes about how public, city places are becoming more and more private due to the influence of corporate and commercial companies. She writes specifically about the Bryant Park area in New York City. Zukin’s office is located right across the street from Bryant Park, so she can easily observe the happenings of what goes on there. Although many great things have come from the renovation and privatization of this park, Zukin has one problem with this happening. What really bothers her is, “…the gradual loss of meaningful public life under the control of inclusive, democratic forces that creeping privatization implies (136).” Many people other than Zukin have a problem with this.
I have spoken with many of my friends about this whole problem of privatizing public space, and they agree—we live in a free country and should be able to roam wherever we would like regardless of race, color, ethnicity and economic and social status. But, because of the increase in corporate power in this country it is no longer a right to go where we please—it is a privilege. Zukin does not believe that these private locations are necessarily pushing people out, bat rather they are strategically placing certain things that may make people they do not want there feel uncomfortable. An example in the Minneapolis area is the playing of opera music around Block E. What the designers or owners of this area are trying to do is keep out the lower-class, specifically black population. The problem with this is many people, me included, feel as if they do not fit in anywhere. Or, that they do not have a culture to relate to in many larger cities.
A few of my personal experiences, as well as reading Zukin’s piece have led me to the above conclusion. While I was visiting my sister in New York City I did not feel comfortable in any part of the city. I felt overdressed or underdressed, welcome or not welcome, looked down upon or looked up to. Nowhere in this city did I feel welcome. I felt like a constantly had a disapproving look from at least one person wherever I went. From little, punk kids jumping out of an ally and screaming at me to being treated like I was the poorest of the poor by many shop owners, at the end of the trip I realized there was nowhere for me to belong. In a city as large as New York City I did not think it was possible to feel out of place everywhere I went but, I was proven wrong.
I feel as if each little sub-culture in America, not only in NYC, has discrete things to keep the people who they want out, out. While reading Zukin’s work I became more and more disappointed in the so called free country of America. Growing up I always thought of our country as a place of freedom and a place where people could feel welcome wherever they would like to go. Zukin, you, and I know this is not the case…
Kate Cichy
Comments
Sometimes I wonder how much of the 'discrimination' we feel is real or perceived? Just a thought. This could sound a bit ignorant... but I know for sure there are some things that are discriminantly real, and others... it could be argued on.
I went to NYC this spring break and I didn't feel at all out of place. There were so many different kinds of people that I actually felt like I blended in with the mix. Which part of NYC did you go to?
What I don't really appreciate is that when there are clusters of minorities together in the city, at a park, or anywhere, cops or city planners assume that there's going to be trouble. what's up with that?
i think it would be really funny if playing classical music on block e had an adverse affect than from what they assume it would do to drive "troubled people" out. i think there are some subtle stereotypical notions about how minority peepo don't listen to ClAssIcAL music. shit, we color people like classical too!
April 27, 2007
OBE 6
Sharon Zukin describes in her article “Who’s Culture? Who’s City?” the marketing of symbols and privatization of space in urban settings. This growing economy of culture continues to influence the way cities are structured, the way business operate, and the interaction of people within those places.
My research on the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood and my residency within the Seward neighborhood backs up many of Zukin’s theories on cultural commodification and the struggle over public and private space. Presenting a particular sector of a city as culturally rich correlates to the commercial successes found there, therefore making areas more likeable to the public and more fiscally in control. Organizations like the NRP (the Neighborhood Revitalization Plan), which is a city wide urban renewal plan, targets individual neighborhoods and helps them both financially and structurally to revamp the area and make it more inviting/welcoming. This invitation usually comes in the form of new business who cater to those who will buy into their symbolic trendiest. Art museums, parks, cafés all fit into this model. Cultural revitalization can, at times, be detrimental to the social structure of an area. As Zukin puts it, “it offers a coded means of discrimination” (139). Being said, there are also many positive outcomes of cultural growth.
In Seward, we recently built a new children’s park that marks the entrance into the neighborhood. Although this form of revitalization cannot really be labeled as negative, and offers a public space to the entire community, other projects in the area are more concerning. One recent project involves local graffiti artists as they attempt to revamp an abandoned building down the street from my house. This will soon be the new home of the Seward Co-op. While I completely agree with using vacant spaces to improve a community, employing local artists to contribute their talents, and supporting co-operative establishments, I have reservations about the demographic that this building will reach. The money from the city and neighborhood funds are going towards the financing of a new co-op that most people in our neighborhood are unable to afford in the first place. Meanwhile immigrant owned convenience stores and small markets just blocks from the new business will never be helped by these same funds.
In Cedar-Riverside, Dania Halls stands (or rather doesn’t stand) as a reminder of the many old historical buildings that are being taken over by revitalization plans. Once a safe place for immigrants, drifters, and other displaced people, the city felt it threatened the safety of the neighborhood and they decided to abandon the building, set it on fire, and reduce it to a paved parking lot for all the new business in the area from bars, theaters and cafés. Similarly, the Cedar-Riverside Business Association, while open to all community businesses, rarely reaches its immigrant business owners due to the material provided and a lack of understanding. This is yet another form of coded discrimination which affects the successes of marginalized business owners and supports the advancements of desired culture which is described by “constant political pressures by interest groups and complex interwoven networks of community groups, corporations, and public officials” who have “multiple visions” (Zukin, 140).
OBE #5 Whose city, whose skywalk?
Sharon Zukin focuses on multiple aspects of current situations facing modern American cities. She heavily focuses on the dwindling culture shared across our cities, as well as the decay of urban public space. She looks at New York and the consequences she is seeing due to these changes. I’m going to take a look at the Twin Cities area and draw some comparisons between her findings in New York, and the area around Minneapolis.
I wanted to focus my observations somewhere around the city where I could simply watch the everyday interactions of the citizens and draw my conclusions. I decided to take my study to the overhead skywalks that line the spaces between downtown buildings. I then focused on Zukin’s two main points.
First, I looked at the issue of culture and its impact on society. The idea of culture is one that involves people from all walks of life. Nobody is cultureless, and everybody can share it in. However, there are many barriers to sharing in culture, which have negative effects. I feel the skyways put individuals in a world of isolation, where culture cannot reach. Someone walking in a skyway is incapable of hearing the music from the local club, seeing the paintings on display from a painter, or simply observing the everyday interactions associated with a city. Without having a reason to utilize the street, one can bypass everything about the city except for the direct path needed to return where you came from. Typically, a skyway is shared by a select demographic of individuals, usually sharing things like an occupation or a hungry stomach. The “culture” you receive while inside a skyway is minimal at best simply due to the lack of connectivity to your surrounds.
Zukin also takes a look at public space, and how major corporations are privatizing the surrounding places. Skyways are a very interesting aspect of public space, which have also been highly privatized. Although usually not “private,” skyways certainly create a sense of class separation. As mentioned above, a specific spread of people seems to occupy skyways. Rarely do you see lower class people, poor individuals, or immigrants throughout the skyway system. More typical is the middle class, white, business person, either to or from work, or seeking the nearest food source. With this, you invisibly put restrictions on who can and cannot use these walkways. As with Jane Jacobs, Zukin is a big proponent to what she calls “My City,” and believes that interactions create a “social theater” for others to partake. Both Jacobs and Zukin would find the skyway system detrimental to the interpersonal connections needed for a fully functioning city.
While looking at skyways, it is clear that they create a different sense than the street does 15 feet below. The glass-enclosed structure does more than simply providing personal transportation for individuals, be it intentional or not. Zukin would argue that the privatizing of this public space hurts the social economy of our city, while pushing culture further away from the individuals that use them.
OBE#6-Public Space & MOA
As Sharon Zukin discusses in her piece, "Whose Culture? Whose City?", there are
certainly risks involved when public space is privately funded. When private money goes
into public space, those footing the bill have the control to shape that place in ways that
makes it more or less welcoming to certain people. Ethnic minority and working-class
people are often implicity shunned from public spaces which work to appeal to more
middle-to-upper class and Caucasian people. Zukin writes, "Many Americans, born and
raised in the suburbs, accept shopping centers as the preeminent public spaces of our
time. Yet while shopping centers are undoubtedly gathering places, their private
ownership has always raised questions about whether all public has access to them and
under what conditions. (146)" Segragation in public spaces is not entirely something of
the past here in the United States, but from my visits to the MOA, it did not appear to me
that certain steps were taken to make specific populations feel less welcome there, and I
came across people from many different background who appeared to have no insecurity
about feeling they had a right to be there just as much as anyone else.In fact, the MOA
could be said to live up to its claim to have something to offer for everyone. With the inclusion
of stores such as The Dollar Tree, Sears and DSW shoe warehouse, those without a lot of
money to spend can find something within their range at the mall. Also, stores such as DEB,
Rainbow, D.E.M.O. sell merchandise which tends to appeal to the fashion tastes of many young
African-Americans. If anything, the availability of numerous metro tranist bus routes which
provide people from inner-city areas easy-access to the mall suggests that the MOA
welcomes anyone and everyone.
Safety within a mall of such magnitude requires extensive efforts of social control. There
are 100 security officers staffed inside and outside of the mall, and are on duty all hours.
Also, there are 160 closed-circuit tv cameras located in parking ramps, surface lots, commons
areas, and the indoor amusement park. The officers and the technology are in place to protect
the integrity of the mall and to provide a sense of safety to visitors, but in the past there have
been occurrences of violent crimes on its premises, and as a popular hang-out for young people,
teen crime was a growing problem. In 1996 the mall began enforcing the parental escort policy
which requires that youth aged fifteen and younger be accompanied by an adult aged 21 or older
on Fridays and Saturdays after 4 p.m. The mall rules state: "Conduct that is disorderly, disruptive
or which interferes with or endangers business or guests is prohibited. Such conduct may include
running, loud offensive language, spitting, throwing objects, fighting, obscene gestures, gang signs,
running, skating, skateboarding, bicycling etc. Intimidating behavior by groups or individuals, loitering;
engaging in soliciting; blocking storefronts, hallways, skyways, fire exits or escalators, and walking
in groups in such a way as to inconvenience others is prohibited." These rules could be interpreted
and exercised in ways which result in certain types of individuals as being looked at as potential
problems by mall security, and thus their activity would likely be monitored more closely while at the
mall. For me, the behavior that groups of young African-American males often exhibit while
socializing comes to mind while reviewing these rules and so to see I sought out a group of young
African-American males at the mall and asked them if they ever experienced discrimination while
visiting the mall, and they responded that they felt they were watched in stores by clerks and
security more closely than other shoppers, but were never explicitly discriminated, and they said
that being watched while in businesses was something they were used to, and that mall employees
did not seem to do so more than employees at any other business they frequent.
Plans for expansion set to begin this year at the MOA are expected to double it in
size with the addition of hotels, an ice rink, a performance arts center, and possibly even
a water park. The addition, called Phase II, will connect the mall to the Ikea store north of
the mall. An excerpt from the mall's website containing information on the project reports
that "While still in the planning stages, Mall of America Phase II concepts will display a
lifestyle-oriented, progressive and innovative personality that will complement the
existing shops and attractions at Mall of America." If this is the direction that the project
ends up going in, then I think it could be very likely that the social atmosphere of the
mall will be altered dramatically as it begins to appeal more to certain interests rather
than to all retail shoppers. With the addition of venues that cater to seemingly more
"refined" cultural tastes, the mall will likely implement strategies to create more of a
carefully constructed environment to appeal to the comfort of a narrower target audience.
As more money is invested into revitalizing the MOA in order to sustain itself as the
number one tourist attraction in the United States, it can be expected that measures will
be taken to protect the integrity of this project against any threats such as ethnic youths
and the poor frequenting the mall for reasons other than spending money, as
gentrification often speaks to segregation of public spaces, as the rich often prefer to
frequent elite sanctuaries where they can ignore the existence of lower classes.
April 28, 2007
Carpet out from under Zukin - Jonathan Little
First off I will say that I disagree with Zukin’s analyses of private/public space and although I will work with the assignment in this OBE by doing an ethnographic study, I will also spend some time refuting her arguments.
It is important, firstly, to consider the context in which this dialogue is taking place. During the 60s New York City required developers of large skyscrapers in Manhattan to provide a certain amount of open space at the ground floor. In doing this the developers were allowed to construct buildings larger than zoning regulations permitted. This deal was made assuming that pedestrians would use the public spaces that the buildings provided, however, as many of them were poorly designed and undesirable places to be, they were often found empty. New York City hired William H. Whyte to research why some spaces were filled with people while others were virtually empty. He outlined several ways that spaces could be made to attract more people in his book The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, such as movable chairs, the presence of fountains, low and easily traversable steps, pleasant light sources, mixed use (i.e. commercial presence), and what he calls Triangularization. Triangularization is characterized by some kind of aesthetically appealing artifact such as public art.
Zukin argues against William Whyte and Jane Jacobs through a Foucaultian lens. She, however, at times seems to completely misunderstand these theorists’ ideas. She creates a straw man argument with respect to the conceptions of Whyte and Jacobs by not fully explaining their ideas and at times completely misquoting them. For example, she writes “Whyte recommended keeping ‘the undesirables’ out by making a park attractive. Victorian kiosks selling cappuccino and sandwhiches were built and painted.” This is only half way true and highly distorts what Whyte says with respect to these spaces. Because Zukin does not do justice to Whyte’s theories, I will attempt to do so myself. Whyte discerns two kinds of “undesirables”: those who can be seen as undesirable but are harmless (for example, someone drinking from a paper bag) and those who are seen as “undesirable” and harmful (for example, drug dealers). The latter group of undesirables are indeed pushed out, as Zukin claims, by increased use of public spaces. This is not necessarily because particular cultures are unwelcome but because drug dealers don’t generally want to deal in a highly trafficked area as their dealings are quite illicit. One approach do ridding of drug dealers has been to reduce the number of places to sit in a public area by cementing rocks to ledges or removing benches. Consequently, the space becomes more appealing to drug dealers because fewer other kinds of people use the space, since there is nowhere to sit.
Whyte, however, supports the presence of the harmless undesirable. He writes “The way people use a place mirrors expectation. Seagram’s management is pleased people like its plaza and is quite relaxed about what they do. It lets them stick their feet in the pool; does not look to see if kids are smoking pot on the pool ledge; tolerates oddballs, even allowing them to sleep the night on the ledge. The sun rises the next morning. The place is largely self policing, and there is rarely trouble of any kind.”
(Pg. 63 The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces) As is apparent from this quote, Whyte considers the harmless undesirables as helping to facilitate the safety of the plaza. The upper-class business types of Midtown Manhattan and the bums cooperate in an unsaid social system that makes the public space more desirable for everyone except drug dealers.
The fact that drug dealers are being excluded from public areas is not due to a cultural exclusion but rather to the legality of the matter. Those partaking in illicit dealings generally exit the public realm for obvious reasons. And if books were illegal, one would expect to find book dealers in areas where others are not found. Cultural temperaments are not being excluded but rather highly illicit activity. And, again, this happens because those who partake in illicit activities prefer the absence of those who are not because it jeopardizes their business. It has nothing to due with the exclusion of the multifarious cultures to which drug dealers appertain.
As I write this, I am sitting in a café; a private establishment on the corner of 22nd and Lyndale. A drunk man entered, professed his love for humanity, and handed one of the costumers a flower. He is quite different from the cliental comprised at the moment primarily of students vigorously working on a Friday night through the last weeks of the semester. After he left, the barista, who doubles in function as security for the café by kicking out harmful undesirables, looked at me and simply uttered the word “nice.” Although this café is 100% private, it does not exclude people of different cultures and temperaments. The establishment defines its own décor, and although it likely professes a particular culture, one finds many different kinds of people of many different cultural identities enjoying the same space.
I mention this because an underlying assumption that Zukin portrays throughout her writing is that private institutions are inherently worse than public institutions with respect to who is welcome and who is not. She never fully explains why it would be that this is the case but rather assumes the reader will consider this to be true. As I see it, privately run establishments, whether they be cafes or parks, can be just as accepting as publicly run establishments. Likewise, each of these can be equally excluding. I see no reason to believe that there is a necessary and inherent difference in the functioning of private and public institutions with respect to the inclusion or exclusion of particular cultures.
I visited Bryant park this last January with ethnographic intentions in mind being that Whyte writes about it. Although it was January, on this particular day there was beautiful sixty or seventy degree weather and an ample amount of people using the park. Although, I noticed no drug dealers, (which I realize can be hard to do unless you know what you’re looking for since they keep their dealings on the DL), I did notice the harmless undesirables. There were several homeless and I remarked at least one individual drinking from a paper bag. Likewise, it seemed there were plenty of non-white-business-midtown-types present. These people seemed comfortable and I saw no one harassed by an authority figure private or public. And so, I do not know what Zukin is talking about, but it seems her writing is quite epistemically irresponsible.
Comments
Maybe you are aware of this, but your refution of Zukin's stance is actually more Foucauldian than hers. According to your take, the fact that the mixture of professionals during the day with harmless undesirables compels drug dealers to take their business practices elsewhere is the apotheosis of Foucault's notion of the docile subject. When informal parameters are in place, in this case the class and culture mixture of Bryant park, there is no need for overt security because the criminal element is aware of the illict nature of their practices and subsequently police themselves.
As to your Cafetto example, I agree that you might have the occasional drunk or homeless man pop in, but is that place really that open to all? I haven't been in there for quite a while as I don't live over there anymore, but I can't remember seeing any large or frequent number of customers that deviate from a young, white, or young and white subject position. I don't think I ever saw any regular patrons from a Somalian, Black, Hispanic, or Asian background in there on a regular basis. So while yes, technically everyone is welcome, the aesthetics and location of Cafetto draw mainly a specific clientele. I don't think it's necessarily the absolute fault of the café, for example the starbucks off of riverside draws a predominately male Somalian crowd, which I wouldn't attribute to their cookie cutter aesthetic. My point is that while private and public spaces may not be as totalitarian as Zukin posits, the tribalization of the city still keeps the heft of various social groups segregated.
I do not disagree with the foucautian analyses. i only argue that it does not apply as she purports and to the extent that she does so with respect to culture although it applies to many other things.
I can think of quite a few non-white and non-young costumers that regular the cafe. A good friend of mine Hussein, for example, of middle eastern decent. Two other friends of mine from senegal, Ponge and 'Bob.' A group of samalians, the names of whom i do not know. and a group of hispanics i find there frequentely. Not to mention Matthew who works there and is african american. The list goes on but i will stop it there. it irks me a bit to even label these people under their respective racial and ethnic backgrounds. i think that perhaps some just think about it less than others.
Fair enough. Like I said, I haven't been in there on a regular basis for a few years, so that in tandem with the unreliability of memory left me with that notion. I agree that people are not reducible to socially constructed catagories, but they do have tangible consequences, regardless of how "color blind" anyone claims to be.
OBE #6: Zukin Culture
Everywhere you turn there are advertisements surrounding your vision. When you wake up to watch the morning news there are not only commercials but sections “sponsored by” companies. Then you leave your home and there are billboards and signs trying to sell you your product. Finally you get to class and there are students wearing Twins T-shirts and hats. In Sharon Zukin’s piece “Whose Culture? Whose City?”, she discusses culture in relation to consumerism symbols and how it creates a sense of safety through homogeneity and repetition within consumers. Because of expenses, public buildings are being controlled through advertisements by private companies. This control allows the companies to create a space of a certain culture through symbols, but are these visual signs creating only safety? In addition to the safety comes exclusion. Zukin’s article will be discusses through the Twin’s Stadium and how it creates its own culture through merchandise, how the structure provides a sense of safety and how this safety creates exclusion. There are many sport’s stadiums and concert halls that are more encouraged by corporate companies, but within the Twin Cities the Twin’s will be used to describe Zukin.
A cities culture is created through what the city consists of. Zukin describes culture as “a powerful means of controlling cities” and “symbolizes ‘who belongs’ in specific places” (137). She then goes on to describe culture as “intertwined with capital and identity in the city’s production systems” (140). Citizens of a city, and even travelers, purchase their identity through the public spaces companies. For instance, the merchandise at the Twin’s games is a staple of the city through the baseball team, and the baseball team is owned by people of higher stature. This shows that the team and the people that support the Twin’s are influenced by these people of a higher corporation.
Owners of the Twin’s need to provide safety within the stadium in order for customers to keep returning, while excluding others. Zukin describes privatization occurring through the fear of violence. This can be seen within the Twin’s stadium through the design. The attempt at safety is seen through prices, security, and design. A customer needs to have a certain amount of money to enter the game. In exchange for the money, a ticket is given with a certain gate to enter in. At this game you need to give the ticket to a worker and go through security guards to make sure there are no unwanted items such as weapons or even alcohol. Even though outside alcohol is not permitted, you can buy it at the stadium (for a good amount of money). This high price on alcohol, usually, limits the amount a customer can drink and therefore reduces the quantity of drunken people. These prices not only exclude homeless people because they cannot afford the tickets, but create a sort of hierarchy within the stadium. Certain seats have more value based on the demand for the seats and therefore better seats cost more (box office seats) and worse seats cost less (nose bleed section). These sections are protected by even more security guards that ensure that people safely find their seats and keeps only people that can afford those seats in their section. This means that the better seats exclude people with less money to make sure that each section is surrounded by people of the same status. Many times people have season’s tickets, also costly, which create a state of normalcy which Zukin believes will reduce fear and create a sense of safety. People that sit in the “nose bleed” sections generally do not have season’s tickets which makes those spaces not a safe. Also in those sections there are not as many security guards and they are not worried about ticket holders that are not supposed to be in that section because they are not providing as much money to the stadium. All together, the amount of money spent governs the amount of safety.
Zukin states that “areas [are] governed, and largely or entirely finance, by private organization, often working as a quasi-public authority” (141). The Twin’s stadium creates a culture through the purchasing of merchandise and the sense of safety that also excludes people from the safety through money. Public space is being taken over by private corporations, or owners, that exclude people through symbolic means. In this case the safety is reinforced through purchasing. In the end, the more you buy, the safer you are – so go out and buy to be part of the Minnesota culture.
(End note: I enjoy baseball games – go twins!)
Comments
I agree with the argument that looking at how society is reflected through popculture can explain a lot about the people. I think what Zukin is saying is that popular culture is a product of the people's in that make up the culture.
More good stuff to come i promise...I just have to relate it to other theorists
Posted by: OBE #4 | April 4, 2007 06:45 PM
I think that while Zukin has some great points about culture, economy, and society, there are some parts where she is really reading too far into things. It's way too over-analyzed. Can anyone take anything for face value anymore?
If I seem bitter and pessimistic, it's because I am, but only temporarily. I promise that I'm not usually like this.
Allison
Posted by: Allison | April 5, 2007 01:56 PM
Why can't we all just get along?
In the “Public Space” section of the Zukin article she argues, “Reacting to previous failures of public space due to crime, a perceived lower class and a minority group presence, and despair- the new parks use design as an implicit code of inclusion and exclusion.” I will use Zukin to argue, discreetly segregating parks through regulating park hours, creates hostility between ethnic minorities, people of lower income, and white middle class suburbanites along with perpetuating the problem of spatial segregation between people.
Zukin claims that, “the more normal users there are the less space there will be for vagrants and criminals to maneuver.” I am critical of this statement. There is a vague definition of “normal”. The connotation of the word normal that I get as a White female who grew up in a rural community is a White Anglo Saxon Protestant (WASP—by no means do I agree with this definition, but when it is not defined I think that the everyday human being would connect “normal” with a WASP in this example whether it be consciously or unconsciously.) This leads to the assumption that the people not falling under this “WASP” category are abnormal deviants of society. This ideology that white skin color distinguishes, normal from abnormal, good citizen from bad citizen perpetuates this mentality.
Park hours of 9-7 coincides with the business day ensures that the majority of whites have the privilege of taking advantage of the park during their business day. The article states, “The dominant complexion of park users is white, with minority group members clustered outside the central green.” Keep in mind in the parks Zukin was describing, they had amenities such as movable chairs and benches in the inside circle of the park. Zukin says, “Like segregation, a traditional etiquette of public order of the urban poor involves dividing up territory by ethnic groups.” The image that the majority gets to use the amenities provided by the park, but the minority is pushed out to the outer areas where there are only grass seats causes hostility between park users.
For my OBE I focused on the public space issue of Zukin’s article and the effects it has on the people using the space. I claim that the reason regulating park hours creates hostility between different ethnic groups and people of lower socioeconomic status is due to the fact that the park is only open for access during the social elites business day. Therefore, the majority of people using the park are going to be people who are not working, or people who are working out on their lunch break. Wirth would blame the spatial segregation on the fact that people with common interests cluster themselves together. Therefore, the park is segregated into groups of different socioeconomic statuses, occupations and ethnicities. Consequently, in the evidence Zukin uses, the majority of park users are the white elites so they take up the central region, and the other people are pushed to the edges where there are no chairs or food. As a result, tension and hostility build between the different groups of people.
Karah Barr
Posted by: I was "OBE #4" sorry | April 28, 2007 01:00 AM