This past week, we read Kevin Loughran’s paper, “Parks for Profit: The High Line, Growth Machines, and the Uneven Development of Urban Public Spaces,” where he examines the era of neoliberalism, stratified economic and cultural resources that produce a spectrum of unevenly developed public parks. Specifically, he examines the “High Line,” a one and a half mile long elevated linear park on the West side of Manhattan, which was formerly a viaduct section for the New York Central Railroad. Loughran argues that this transformation “structure[d] the [privileged] leisure and consumption practices of a new urban middle class and anchor[ed] the continued super-gentrification of the surrounding communities” (57). In this post, I want to consider how the idea that cities are machines for economic growth contributes to gentrification and the privileged leisure and consumption practices of the urban space.

John Logan and Harvey Molotch portray the city as a growth machine, where it is built, maintained, and shaped by groups of people (i.e. pro-growth elites) who stand to benefit from the growth. However, because elites try to maximize profit, their projects often contribute to the gentrification of space in the city. For example, in neighborhoods like “Manhattan’s Lower East Side, community gardens that once served to ‘take land out of the market economy and decommodify it’ now function as symbols of ‘authentic’ urban communities” (51). This development was a result of the new urban middle class’ demand for housing in the city. To elites, this was purely an economic decision in which they realized that through developing the neighborhood, property value and marginal profit per home would increase. Furthermore, elites’ commodification of urban space also shows how “parks catering to poor communities and immigrants are underfunded, [and] forgotten unless they can serve ‘growth’ schemes” (50). While parks in high-income areas are readily maintained and regulated, parks in low-income areas represent a disinvestment of effort and interest to raise social welfare because profit-maximizing economics does not consider morality. I believe these “growth schemes” also lead specifically to privileged leisure and consumption practices in gentrified spaces.

Elites of the city are not the only individuals contributing to the gentrification of urban space. Businesses, who also prioritize profit maximization, take advantage of newly gentrified neighborhoods and urban space. In the reading, Loughran describes how the High Line displays “billboards for luxury brands – Veuve Clicquot, Armani, and Hennessey” (59). Economically, this is a strategic placement of advertisements for these companies. Socially, this is a representation of how the privileged leisure practices of those who walk the high line allow businesses to marginalize low-income individuals. The “iconic ghetto” illustrates the reason for this increasing marginalization of urban spaces. Although the “iconic ghetto” is an analyzation of the perception of blacks to whites, I believe it can also contribute to understanding this example. The overwhelming whiteness of places and spaces (i.e. the High Line) reinforces a normative sensibility where people of color are absent, not expected, and marginalized when present. The billboards, along with the shops and amenities of the High Line, are specifically targeted to the middle-class white individual, who are the most common visitors of the High Line.

Gentrification in urban spaces is due to elites striving for profit maximization and growth in the city. Consequently, this leads to middle-class individuals moving into spaces like the Lower East Side of Manhattan. These individuals have preferences, interests, and values which are targeted by higher end brands like Armani, Starbucks, and Rolex. Therefore, luxury brands are able to target not only the individuals but space where they occupy. However, this leads to the marginalization of low-income people who do not share the same privileged preferences.

-David R.