This is a comment I left on Marina Magana's blog for her week 8 post:
Hello Marina,
I found your post very informative and insightful. I have always been curious myself about the demographics surrounding both UCLA and USC. I mean it isn't a mystery to anyone who lives in Los Angeles that these areas are VERY different, but I never knew by how much, and your projections from simplymap break it down perfectly and really help us see how much segregation (whether voluntary or structural) really exists in Los Angeles. These areas illustrate a very stark difference in demographic make-up and socioeconomic conditions that are observable directly through property values objectively and are much more easy to measure than the subjective values of cars driving down the streets and the quality of the landscaping. You mention that UCLA and USC are just 15 miles apart, but differences this apparent happen just a few blocks let alone just a few miles between respective areas in LA. It is amazing to see how much property values vary from zip code to zip code and one wonders whether the values are so high because of the city name and the reputation behind it or the property values increase over time through improvements and development and seclusion and the name in turn follows... The neoliberal concept of urban secession would suggest the latter and I would have to agree. When USC was founded I'm sure the surrounding area was nothing but land and sparse, dominantly white communities. It's flaw was that it was to close to the city and industrial center... it lacked that exclusive seclusion and separation from industry for the much sought after aesthetic beauty that nature provided. Where was this nature available around the time UCLA was moved to its current location? It was along the edges of the Santa Monica mountains, a prime location for new development and new estates. The automobility and the freeway culture in LA made these suburban enclaves possible and the less desirable and tainted areas were left to less desirable populations according to segregation patterns and practices. You also mention that you looked at the black and white student populations of these respective schools, but you have to realize that such institutions are incubated from the surrounding areas and represent a much broader population from around the country and around the world. These two universities are completely separated from their surrounding neighborhoods and can't be held as measures of that demographic.
I found your post very informative and insightful. I have always been curious myself about the demographics surrounding both UCLA and USC. I mean it isn't a mystery to anyone who lives in Los Angeles that these areas are VERY different, but I never knew by how much, and your projections from simplymap break it down perfectly and really help us see how much segregation (whether voluntary or structural) really exists in Los Angeles. These areas illustrate a very stark difference in demographic make-up and socioeconomic conditions that are observable directly through property values objectively and are much more easy to measure than the subjective values of cars driving down the streets and the quality of the landscaping. You mention that UCLA and USC are just 15 miles apart, but differences this apparent happen just a few blocks let alone just a few miles between respective areas in LA. It is amazing to see how much property values vary from zip code to zip code and one wonders whether the values are so high because of the city name and the reputation behind it or the property values increase over time through improvements and development and seclusion and the name in turn follows... The neoliberal concept of urban secession would suggest the latter and I would have to agree. When USC was founded I'm sure the surrounding area was nothing but land and sparse, dominantly white communities. It's flaw was that it was to close to the city and industrial center... it lacked that exclusive seclusion and separation from industry for the much sought after aesthetic beauty that nature provided. Where was this nature available around the time UCLA was moved to its current location? It was along the edges of the Santa Monica mountains, a prime location for new development and new estates. The automobility and the freeway culture in LA made these suburban enclaves possible and the less desirable and tainted areas were left to less desirable populations according to segregation patterns and practices. You also mention that you looked at the black and white student populations of these respective schools, but you have to realize that such institutions are incubated from the surrounding areas and represent a much broader population from around the country and around the world. These two universities are completely separated from their surrounding neighborhoods and can't be held as measures of that demographic.
No comments:
Post a Comment