Molotch’s focus on the development of a neighborhood as dependent on/enforced by “those at the top of the power structure”, and his definition of what growth is, made me automatically make the connection to the simplified method of developing an economy. More human capital (labor), more physical capital and advanced technologies. In his description of success Molotch mentions very similar principles of constantly expanding labor force, land development etc. This comparison of the neighborhood to a business seems to go along with his idea of the influential group with the interest of making a profit, however still seems to me as controversial. Some dwellers or politicians may be more influential- occasionally even to the extent that they don’t leave other residents any choice but leave, however they are not the exclusive definers of what a neighborhood really is. The every-day life, the interactions between the neighbors and the overall atmosphere in the neighborhood are in many cases the components that make the neighborhood unique, attractive and sometimes even successful.
Along with the idea that the people of the neighborhood are, in many cases, the real definers- goes the concept of exchange value versus use value. I believe however that the value of a place, sentimentally and monetarily should be reduced and rather focused on several distinct elements as it is by itself somewhat vague.
A hypothetical proposal to recreate what seems like an identical neighborhood to one that is currently being gentrified, in a different, less popular location would most definitely not be enough to satisfy the romantics that would argue that the history of the place can not be relocated. The different location may also be an essentiality in the generation and formation of the specific unique atmosphere and identity of the neighborhood. but if all people (‘the community’) move together and start a new/old neighborhood in a different place wouldn’t it be considered as one possible solution that answers many of the difficulties all sides are facing in the war over the land?
On the other hand, the inexorable tension and struggle to decide whether to fight or flee can not be undermined. (These two options must not be exclusively linked to certain negative or positive connotations and must be regarded equally, depending on the given circumstances.) The relevant values when making the decision whether to leave a certain neighborhood or to fight for your right to live there should be carefully considered; for example, is a better future for my children more important to me than my mental and nostalgic attachment to my past in this place? should I fight for my right to maintain my business in its current location or rather attempt to relocate it?
This may be a problematic and perhaps a completely different subject, however for the purpose of clarifying my approach in considering the previos dilema, I was contemplating specific circumstances involving such over-attachment to land, that play a major role in the conflict in the middle east. Rather than seeking a better future and a way to promise a prospective thriving of the countries, many people are blinded, usually by extremists’ propaganda, to think the land’s value is far more of an important cause.
*The title refers to a classic children book in Hebrew, which describes the journey of neighbors in one apartments-building to find a new resident that would like to rent an empty flat in their building. *spoiler* the new dweller agrees to rent it based on the impression that the neighbors made on her and regardless of the problematic physical features of the apartment.
**please excuse the randomness and the fact that each paragraph describes a distinct thought, I really couldn’t choose one topic to focus on in this response (and this is after filtering out 3 additional ideas that I had..) sorry!
