I appreciate Molotch’s view of a city as a growth machine. His description captures the dynamics of a city, which I believe is the most prominent characteristic. His definition of a community alone is one that shows how changing interests and goals change the sense of community people feel and people can belong to communities on different levels. The disadvantage to this view is how dehumanized and robotic communities are made out to be. Molotch makes it seem as though anybody can be a member of any community that they share a goal with. Many times, gentirification renders this as not the case as Sharon Zukin expresses. The old group and the new group in a certain place can be so different with regards to age and race that a demographic will change based on people’s comfort levels in the place. Zukin brings up a scary point in the Schwarz’s articles. It seems that an almost inherent side effect of gentrification is homogeneity. Zukin becomes upset everytime that a Starbuck’s stretches its grasp into a new neighborhood, and I can’t help but agreeing with her. Homogeneity can turn our beautiful and diverse city into bland block after bland block. Something that really characterizes the city as a growth machine is that anybody could settle and establish themselves. So, in a way that I never considered before, the influx of gentrifiers may actually be stifling the growth machine.
Stephanie Azzopardi
