This is a comment I left on Itay Vinik's blog for week 9:
Hello Itay,
I really enjoyed this post because it explores two processes occurring simultaneously in the same space at the same time, involving two very different parties. It seems to be a more common occurrence in los angeles to target development projects in unfavorable areas, such as your friends gated apartment complex. This gentrification is being fueled by the very low property prices and the absence of any opposition given that most that do live in the area have no rights to property and the ones that already own property are all for development because it would provide less space for the unsavory residents that give this neighborhood a bad name. So in that case it's a win-win situation from strictly a financial stand point, but the people with the least to lose, lose it and then what are the homeless left with? Those that already have nothing are consistently marginalized more and more as the gentrification of the city "makes it look so nice." Many people that support this process probably don't even give a second thought to where these people might go or what will happen to them as a result of losing this safe haven that they have built for themselves. They won't stop being homeless somewhere else, they will just be pushed further and further out in areas where they are unwelcome and mistreated by authorities or locals with no group solidarity to fall back on or defend them. This post almost reminds me of the description Engels gives of greater Manchester as he travels around the slums in disgust making his observations and then returns to the safety of the removed space for those that can afford certain amenities and privileges, kind of like your hipster friend from Manhattan. I'm curious to know what your friend thinks of the neighborhood he lives in and the people that share it with him... maybe the only thing making it liveable are the barriers, both physical and socioeconomic.
I really enjoyed this post because it explores two processes occurring simultaneously in the same space at the same time, involving two very different parties. It seems to be a more common occurrence in los angeles to target development projects in unfavorable areas, such as your friends gated apartment complex. This gentrification is being fueled by the very low property prices and the absence of any opposition given that most that do live in the area have no rights to property and the ones that already own property are all for development because it would provide less space for the unsavory residents that give this neighborhood a bad name. So in that case it's a win-win situation from strictly a financial stand point, but the people with the least to lose, lose it and then what are the homeless left with? Those that already have nothing are consistently marginalized more and more as the gentrification of the city "makes it look so nice." Many people that support this process probably don't even give a second thought to where these people might go or what will happen to them as a result of losing this safe haven that they have built for themselves. They won't stop being homeless somewhere else, they will just be pushed further and further out in areas where they are unwelcome and mistreated by authorities or locals with no group solidarity to fall back on or defend them. This post almost reminds me of the description Engels gives of greater Manchester as he travels around the slums in disgust making his observations and then returns to the safety of the removed space for those that can afford certain amenities and privileges, kind of like your hipster friend from Manhattan. I'm curious to know what your friend thinks of the neighborhood he lives in and the people that share it with him... maybe the only thing making it liveable are the barriers, both physical and socioeconomic.
No comments:
Post a Comment