Freeman’s There Goes the ‘Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up explains gentrification, its after effects and extensive background and history. He touches on why whites flood a neighborhood, the increase in services and infrastructure after they arrive and the reaction from the people who were there before them. Reading Freeman’s thoughts on gentrification made me question my own and the veracity and validity of my feelings. For most the word gentrification brings up negative and unsettling thoughts of POC communities being displaced in favor of Whole Foods and luxury housing but for some it is not an innately negative word. They think about the increase in property values and the potential for community members to benefit from the improvements.

Sometimes, the conversation about gentrification is hijacked by those who only see the benefits without considering the key stakeholders present such as renters who have lived in a neighborhood for generations or those who value the culture of a certain community. They are invalidating the feelings and experiences of residents by not offering them a seat at the table so they can play a role in the decision making process. Freeman talked about past experiencing with whites shaping how blacks grapple with gentrification but I think that the issue is deeper. Yes, I think trust is a big factor but for a lot of people Freeman interviewed they had a problem the distribution of services such as parks and police presence. Nate on page 111 summed it up, saying “I don’t like that it takes white people moving into our neighborhood to legitimize our concerns, to legitimize the realization of our property values and to make a neighborhood safe”.   It’s even worse when it’s happening in a larger city and neighborhoods are being treated differently depending on demographics of the residents. My main issue with gentrification mirrors Nate’s. Why does my neighborhood all of a sudden matter because a white family decided to revamp and move into the house next door? The addition of public services in the presence of whites just affirms the idea that white people are the most privileged members in society and communities of color will always be second to them. This is infuriating, especially for someone like me who has lived in a place for over a decade, lived the issues first hand and advocated for change to no avail.

I wish I could see gentrification as something that would benefit everyone but the rampant inequalities and disparities seem to increase in communities after they’ve been brought up to the upper class standards. There needs to be a better system of bettering American neighborhoods without the presence of whites being the catalyst for change. Even though I am able to see the problems with gentrification, I can’t suggest a concise solution; the problem is too large and needs individualized planning. Hopefully, we can soon reach a place where everyone in gentrified communities are able to enjoy and reap the benefits of the upgrades without being uprooted and marginalized in their own home environments.

During our discussion of the High Line one question remained: what is the point of the High Line? Financially, it made more sense to keep the structure standing than tear it down but what is the High Line’s main function or goal? Designers and friends of the High Line repeat mantras of keeping it “simple, wild and slow” (62) but does the uber constructed atmosphere refute the statement? It appears that the goal of the High Line was to provide New Yorkers with an escape from their bustling lives but in the process, they ended up perpetuating the divide between the privileged and the disadvantaged.

The High Line is a socio political disaster that hides under a guise of being inclusive and natural when in reality, who is invited and who is discouraged from entering is a highly restrictive process. Loughran used the example of people sleeping on the Diller-Von Furstenberg Sundeck to point at the immense amount of privilege that is commonly paraded on the High Line. Anywhere else in New York, someone sleeping on a bench in public viewed as criminal, especially if that person is of color. This perception changes if you are a white person taking a nap at the High Line. You are viewed as partaking in a leisure activity while others are persecuted. Privilege is also shown in the ways nature is depicted on the High Line. It appears to be perfect and effortless when in reality, even the trash is policed and kept out of plain sight.

Another problem with the High Line is the selective community engagement. Visitors are presented with an illusion of choice that lets them shuffle between a couple art vendors and booths selling artisanal ethnic delicacies that were picked out for them in advance. The application process for vendors is long and tedious and most of the time they end up not selling anything because the visitors look at the art but they don’t buy it. The Friends of the High Line won’t allow typical New York street food vendors to sell on the tracks, instead they hire vendors that sell tamarind popsicles and other treats. The street food vendors continue their business on the ground level street near the entrance.

The High Line caters to the middle and upper class, leaving all those who identify out of the two groups in the dust. Though the mission might label itself as inclusive and open, the practices are extremely restrictive and polarizing for most.

As more and more “High Lines” pop up across the United States, my hope is that they are more intentional with their design. advertising and implementation process so that they don’t repeat the mistakes of the High Line. I don’t think that much is being done to change the space; people have accepted it as the way things are but it’s definetaly not they way things have to be. Hopefully, future spaces will find a way to bridge the economic and social divide by encouraging real cultural engagement and exchange and promoting all types of diversity, not just the kinds that would fit in with the image they are trying to construct.