In “The City as a Growth Machine” from John R. Logan’s book Urban Fortunes, and Kevin Loughran’s paper “Parks for Profit”, the city is discussed and analyzed as a “growth machine”. This term refers to the way that the elites in cities benefit from economic growth and therefore structure cities’ political atmosphere to foster further growth. These articles made me think about the word “growth” and what it means for a city’s residents. While some groups within cities benefit greatly from economic growth, there are others that do not see these benefits in the same way. The poor members of a city may be hurt by a city’s economic growth as it can widen the economic and social gap between the wealthy and the poor.
This thinking inspired the first part of my expert question of whether economic growth within a city means overall progress or not. Loughran’s paper highlights many problems associated with economic growth as it pertains to the urban poor. He uses the example of New York’s High Line to explain how investment in public spaces can exacerbate inequality within a city. Many of the inequality issues with public space pertains to accessibility. For example, many aspects of the New York’s High Line make it less accessible to the poor than to the wealthy. To enjoy the public space, residents first must be able to find it. While this seems as though it would be equally easy for all residents, that is not the case. Since the public space is meant to attract wealthier residents and tourists, it is well-known in these social circles, and far less known in lower class society. Other aspects of the High Line experience designate it as a privileged space. Examples of this include its excessive cleanliness, the removal of bottles so people cannot collect them, the $1000 application fee for vendors, the wealthy developments it overlooks, the members only section, and the list continues. The issue stems from the political objective for economic growth. The goal is to attract elites and therefore the space is structured in a way that disproportionately benefits and appeals to a higher socioeconomic class. This phenomenon is true of many public spaces in cities, not just the High Line.
The specific example of New York’s High Line is just one manifestation of the larger issue at hand, which is that economic growth of cities is structured in a way that disproportionately benefits the wealthy. This brings me to my second question of what we can do to foster growth that benefits all. The answers I got in class were primarily related to this issue of accessibility. The problem is not simply that cities need to make urban spaces more accessible to the poor, but that they need to make influence in the planning process more accessible. People of all socioeconomic statuses need to be included in local politics, rather than just the elite. The current system of letting the elites structure city growth in a way that benefits them is what perpetuates inequality. The voices of all community members must be heard and considered when making political decisions that affect the economy of a city. Without change to the structure of political systems within cities, socio spatial inequality will continue to grow, and the urban poor will lack access to the resources that wealthier members of the community benefit from.
Reflection: Race, Class, and Politics in the Cappuccino City
In Race, Class, and Politics in the Cappuccino City, Derek S. Hyra studies the effects of gentrification on DC. Hyra writes of the “gilded ghetto,” which has taken the place of the “iconic ghetto.” According to Hyra, the gilded ghetto is “An emptiness reflecting a futile struggle to find substance and worth through the concretes of things and possessions . . . The residents of the gilded ghetto may escape by an acceptance of conformity, by the deadly ritual of alcoholism, by absorption in work, or in the articula and transitory excitement of illicit affairs” (Hyra 7). Hyra notes that the gilded ghetto has taken the place of the inner city iconic ghetto. Whites are beginning to re-enter these segregated spaces and add chic restaurants, bars, and apartments. While the presence of whites may seem like integration, it is not. There is diversity segregation, which occurs “when racially, ethnically, and economically disparate people live next to one another, but not alongside one another” (9-10). Despite the reverse white flight, these spaces are still segregated; Hyra notes that the dog park is for white people, the soccer park for hispanics, and the basketball courts for blacks.
Hyra’s piece was particularly interesting to me because of my connection to the city I grew up in. I recently read an article from the Kansas City Star about the new juiceries and hip restaurants that are popping up in the poorest section of the city. While on the surface these new, hip businesses sound like progress, Hyra’s book makes me question this assumption. Troost Avenue would benefit from these new developments; however, the influx of young middle class whites may be doing more harm than good. They may disregard the existing culture of the area or appropriate elements of the culture, which only perpetuates racism and segregation. In conclusion, I am glad we are reading Hyra’s book, as I had little to no previous knowledge on the topic of gentrification, and I believe that it must be studied if we are to truly improve cities.
I agree with you that in instances such as the High Line, the goal is to attract middle-class groups to the area, and this is reflected in the features of the High Line. This example reminds me of Shaw in D.C.. While the area has used cultural tourism to gentrify the area and entice white middle-class residents to the neighborhood, the impact has had negative effects for the original residents. Hyra used a metaphor of a Cappuccino to describe how an influx of a white population results in a rapid rise in prices. Consequently, the poor black residents are unable to benefit from many of the new amenities; some have had to leave due to rising housing costs.
I agree that accessibility needs to improve, in order for the pressures of inequality to diminish. The recent movements surrounding Go-Go music have helped to raise awareness for these issues, but ultimately, there are still significant challenges before change can be made.
I really enjoyed reading your reflection on our discussion about the High Line and believe some of the thoughts you’ve offered can apply to other themes which have arisen throughout the class. As you highlighted in your post, it is clear that there was a profit-driven motivation driving the construction and privatized accessibility of the High-Line. Profit-driven motivations have surfaced as a theme in our class. For example, Wynn’s investigation of the different actors in music festivals suggests that local governments, domestic and global firms, and even musicians take advantage of these large live music venues to better market themselves in hope to advance their career. The secluded accessibility of the High Line, markets the park in a way which aims to attract wealthy residents and tourists rather than lower status individuals or the homeless population. While the behavior of city planners can be described as profit-driven, through their aim to attract wealthy residents, the decision to build the park on old railroad tracks taps into our discussions on authenticity and Richard Florida’s creative class. City planners use the “authenticity” of old railroad tracks to market the High Line as a unique experience where individuals can literally walk along the tracks of history. After what we’ve learned about the creative class, these young and educated individuals crave cultural and historical consumption making the High Line a desirable attraction. These connections strengthen your argument that the High Line was constructed with the intent of attracting a specific wealthy population while profiting from the revenue of tourists. The connections also reveal how these profit-driven motivations and segregated intentions for the park can be seen as problematic as they intentionally discourage the presence of certain social groups.
The idea of a public space exacerbating inequality is a non-intuitive one, which begins to make sense as one digs deeper into the way the space is constructed. This summer I was in NYC and visited the highline, and in fact I also had difficulty getting to the elevated tracks. I was able to see it but didn’t know where to enter. After using google maps, and tracking down an entrance I finally made it up. It was surprising how clean the highline was. For being an old railroad track and a public space, it was remarkably pristine. At the same time thinking back the people who occupied that space were often well dressed, wearing name brands, carrying expensive phones and cameras. Even though NYC has the highest population of people who are homeless, this wasn’t visible in this public space. Thinking back on this, it is strange. Additionally the walking path is surrounded by new apartment popups with advertisements and realtor contacts. The path almost felt like a vehicle to advertise the new area surrounding it. At the end of the path, one enters Hudson Yards a new extremely high end neighborhood. The path feeds into the mall complex which is full of high end retailers and boutiques. Again both of these factors help to push what is considered a public space, into a space for the elite and wealthy.
Thinking back this makes me think about the ways in which inherently public spaces can serve to exacerbate inequality. A big piece of it has to do with who occupies the space, and as mentioned above the elite and well off appeared to be present in the highest numbers. This makes the urban poor feel out of place and like the other in a space that should be equitable. This can contribute to decreased occupancy of the space. Furthermore a space like the highline is used by moving through it. There weren’t any people stopped with their stuff spread out. The idea of the iconic ghetto is in opposition to what the highline represents, and as a result there is often a certain group that finds themself occupying the space. I’m not sure if there is any way to change this highline into a place that is truly more open for everyone. Maybe putting street signs with how to get from ground level up to the tracks. Also I didn’t notice any water fountains, and this might be a result of trying to get people to go into the mall and make purchases. Subtle things like this can make a big difference in who can occupy these spaces. Another interesting point is that there were a few vendors selling sweet treats on the highline. The price points were absurd 8-10$ for a small treat and 4-5$ for a bottled drink. Again this speaks to who this space is targeted for and what groups can take advantage of it. Also the $1000 application fee eliminates certain smaller companies and groups from participating in the space.
I agree with your focus on the actual meaning of “growth” as it pertains to your expert question of whether or not economic growth is synonymous with city-wide progress. As you insinuated, I would argue that definitions of progress are subjective and depend on the socioeconomic class being addressed. For example, in accordance with the political economy paradigm, economic growth is, in fact, synonymous with progress. To maximize “progress” within political economic cities, the decisions made align with maximizing the revenue and profit. However, this definition of progress is only relevant for those who benefit from this monetary gain, such as the politicians or entrepreneurs who control the means of economic growth. However, economic progress that benefits only those who already have access to this wealth disregards the progress of lower-class demographics in cities. I completely agree with your point that economic growth is progress but only for those who can access it.
Cities’ investment in large-scale music festivals exemplifies this idea. In the process of “festivalization,” city governments as well as businesses invest time and resources into executing such festivals. These festivals attract people from around the world and are a large source of revenue for the city, but the monetary gain does not go towards improving the the lesser-developed parts of a city but instead is invested into other money-attracting events and businesses. In terms of accessibility, these festivals are often in highly-developed sections of cities and admission/other costs (i.e. food, “proper” clothing, etc) are highly costly, so such events are only available to those with the means to attend.
There is the possibility of widening accessibility to all people in cities, but this is difficult to do if entrepreneurs and money-hungry politicians hold the control in cities. Like you stated, demographics other than the elite should be able to make city-planning decisions, but this change in accessibility is highly unlikely if cities fit into the political economy paradigm.