In our class discussion about the High Line we talked about theories of political economy and the physical features of the park, but one of our largely unanswered questions was, what is the point of the High Line? In this post, I propose that individual visitors to the High Line, agents in the High Line’s development and the City of New York use and associate with the High Line to gain status.
The High Line is not a large plot of open grassy space nor does it offer many places to sit and stay. Instead, it is a long, elevated and linear pathway that winds by a selection of carefully curated art and food vendors. In class, those who have visited the High Line commented that even accessing the vendors is difficult because of the constant flow of people along the path. So, are people visiting this place just to walk through it? In the most general sense the answer must be no, because if people visited the High Line for the sole purpose of walking they could be doing that on any sidewalk in Manhattan. There must be something that people are getting from the experience of walking on this particular pathway. I propose that people are going to the High Line for the status that occupying the space gives them. Recently, multiple social media platforms such as Instagram and Snap Chat have become increasingly location based with features such as geofilters and location tags. In the age of this specific type of social media, people can track and show others where they have been. As a result, the locations that we associate ourselves with through social media become part of our online presence and identity. Therefore, when people associate themselves with a place, such as the High Line, that is perceived as popular and cool their own status is elevated.
The framework of the political economy provides us with “five areas of agreement” about urban spaces. One of these areas is the importance of government and politics and another point is that actors, such as individuals or corporations, can impact urban environments. Loughran’s piece on the High Line mentions the co-founders of Friends of the High Line, Josh David and Robert Hammond, multiple times. Lourghran mentions that, “the initial meeting between David and Hammond has … taken on mythic status” (55) and that the co-founders have written a book about their High Line project. In founding Friends of the High Line, David and Hammond not only became major actors in shaping a piece of New York but also gained a degree of notoriety and status for their work in the park’s development. Part of my expert question asked about the role that the non-profit plays in navigating between local politics, corporate desires and the public good. There are many ways David and Hammond could have gone about developing the High Line, and yet they chose to start a non-profit. Why might these two have chosen to do this work through the founding of a non-profit organization? Why are they working with politicians and government through the non-profit rather than, for example, running for office? Why might they be affiliating with corporate brands through Friends of the High Line rather than as private investors buying the High Line as property and renting out commercial space? How might doing this work through Friends of the High Line elevate their status and allow them to work more flexibly with major agents such as corporations and local government?
Urban political economy also reminds us that cities are part of a competing global hierarchy and, as industry is being traded in for idea economies, people have more flexibility in choosing where they live. Now that people are not necessarily being drawn to urban centers to work in factories, what is drawing people to spend time in and live in urban centers? We have discussed multiple reasons why people might want to live in or visit a city, but in a time when the factories a city contains do not define its utility, what factors make one city more attractive or competitive than another? I wonder how cities might be trying to use projects like the High Line to develop and curate an individual aesthetic that is meant to make the city a more unique and thus desirable attraction.
The class discussions surrounding technology-based forms of community have been fascinating. Barry Wellman’s claim that online communities can create and foster relationships, and in doing this, lessen the importance of physical space as a basis of community.
I find it interesting to consider how Zorbaugh’s piece might fit into this argument. In his analysis of Chicago, even in areas where the role of technology was minimal or nonexistent, the physical proximity of residents did not serve as a basis for community. The only glimpses of community that he was able to identify were interest or identity based groups. If this is the case, then perhaps community is less about the people we surround ourselves with and more about the people we share common similarities with. This raises questions about how we choose to define community and the changing significance of place in that definition.
I agree with your comment that forms of social media are becoming more location based, and I would argue that a result of this is that certain spaces are becoming increasingly homogeneous. If we are forming communities with like-minded people and sharing our locations with these friends on technology-based forums, then select places, like the High Line, begin to adopt stereotypes and regular visitors. Once places gain reputations, visitors to these locations can earn or lose social capital. It is fascinating to consider how social media, community, and physical space have co-evolved and shaped one other.