A neighborhood, originally safe haven for queer men has now became a booming entertainment district that “…sells straight women a gay lifestyle of fun fashionable drinks in stylish surroundings… offers a place for women to escape straight clubs’ ever-present possibility of violence” (ORNE 23). However, this disneyfication of Boystown as a playground, has led to the transformation of spaces and has led to the rise in heterosexual women appropriating bars and social apps designed to meet the needs of gay men in the Gayborhood.

Orne describes how heterosexual women on safari in the gayborhood have a “tourist gaze” and expect gay men to become their gay best friend for the night and for a specific set of events to occur for it to be considered an authentic experience. This is especially true when a woman used the Hole as a space to stare at the gay men having sexual encounters, rather than respecting and appreciating the purpose of the space. Specifically, Orne writes, “… so she walked over and stuck her head in, again giggling at what was happening inside. Marcus came over and explained the area was for sex. If she wasn’t going to be having sex, she shouldn’t go back. Five minutes later, she was at it again, poking her head around the corner. Marcus, ever patient with customers even he could be stern, told her to stay out” (ORNE 31).

This quote prompted my question which asked if there is a way for sexiness and sexual intimacy to be reintegrated into the community undisturbed. We touched on how the gayborhoods are projecting watered down versions of themselves to accommodate for the rise of non-queer people occupying queer spaces. For instance, originally a day to celebrate the anniversary of the Stonewall riots, pride day has become a day when heterosexual men and women take part in the festivities, because it is the “cool” thing to do. Heterosexual couples even bring their children which results in the sanitation of sex from the original sexy culture in Boystown. This is one of the main drawbacks of a postmodern urban society, because the space utilized is taken for granted and turned into a spectacle by those who the space wasn’t intended for.

Throughout the text, Orne suggest that the original safe space provided by Boystown can only be rehabilitated through sex and sexual intimacy-without it, Boystown would be lost. This led to my question of it being impossible to reintegrate sexiness now that heterosexual women on safari have become interwoven into the culture of Boystown. In the class discussion, I wanted to focus on the idea of reintegrating sexiness into the community even though heterosexual women currently have a strong market relationship in Boystown. One option is to completely ban women from entering these spaces, however, it is illegal to ban a group of people unless there is a clear and violent threat. Also, Boystown relies on the huge economic presence of the women, as they throw bachelorette and birthday parties and convene there for fun nights with friends and to socialize with others.

In 1945 Chauncey Harris and Edward Ullman created the multiple nuclei model, which suggests that cities are locationally fixed growth machines, deeply grounded in capitalism. It also states that cities develop around a central business district. Recently a new theory regarding city growth has emerged called the postmodern city theory. This theory states that there is no singular or dominant approach to understanding contemporary city development. In the article, Los Angeles and the Chicago School: An Invitation to a Debate, Michael Dear makes sense of postmodern urban cities and gives us evidence to argue for or against the existence of an L.A. School of Urbanism.

Some agree that it is time to depart from the Chicago School being the paradigmatic model for all cities. However, this idea hasn’t been accepted by all. In class I wanted to get a better sense as to why the L.A. School of Urbanism is still under debate and why are we using Chicago as a template for all cities. It seems we would gain a better understanding of urban life and function if there were schools that studied the city they were situated in. My question generated some discussion, however, even after our discussion I don’t fully understand why people are skeptical of the L.A. School of Urbanism. We know that the Chicago School of Urbanism was created out of convenience to the researchers. After the Chicago fire, Chicago was reconstructed into a market place and city of entertainment. The researchers went into their “backyard” and used the data they collected from Chicago as a template for all cities in the United States.

The Chicago School limits the versatility and complexity of city experiences in different cities to a singular unit. During our discussion, one of my classmates stated that this is problematic, because rural cities don’t function the same way urban cities like Chicago or postmodern cities like Los Angeles do.  I agree with this statement, because although the convenient nature of the Chicago school gives sociologist a starting point for other urban cities it wouldn’t give reason as to why Iowa City has such a drug abuse issue; nor does it give you a starting point to understand a hybrid city like Los Angeles. Specifically, Dear states that adopting L.A. as a world city template needs to be avoided since it’s urban landscapes aren’t original (page 28). Even though it’s landscapes aren’t original, I think it would be interesting to think study how American urbanities of L.A. function and navigate the city as it is a hybrid of international places like São Paulo and American cities. This could be the reason why Los Angeles is home to 1 million immigrants- they want to move to America to achieve the American dream but they want to live in a place that reminds them of home. By recognizing schools that study the specifics of individual cities we will be able to understand the complexities and experiences of each individual cities to create a more defined and inclusive idea of what it means to be a city.