Especially in New York City, the concept of place cannot be defined through a single narrative. As Hayden discusses in the chapter “Claiming Urban Landscapes as Public History”, analyzing and commentating on the history of public space requires the incorporation of various sociological elements such as gender, race, and ethnicity. Moreover, the chapter focuses heavily on “ the power of place” and how urban memories (streets, buildings, gatherings etc.) are entities that cannot go unnoticed by any effort to preserve a community. Additionally, Hayden mentions that the manipulation of space has been a powerful tool not only for altering economic conditions in some areas, such increasing jobs or enhancing transportation, but also for constraining certain social groups. As Hayden explains, “One of the consistent ways to limit the economic and political rights of groups has been to constrain social reproduction by limiting access to space” (Hayden, 1995). In other words, policies like zoning have significant implications in the realms of politics and economics. Alongside the constraints, the chapter also cites many sources that note that the existence of capitalism in American society and the altered landscape, mentalities and production practices have essentially separated people from their spatial history. Hence, Hayden concludes the chapter by advising preservationists who seek to revive deteriorating communities to critically analyze the idea of place through the lens of sociological memories and experiences rather than ordinary aesthetics.
“The power of place” is resonated in the “Privileged Places” chapter by Squires and Kubrin by stating that the notion of privilege is bound to have a spatial component. Moreover the chapter mentions that the opportunities one has in a metropolitan setting is undoubtedly underscored by his/her “place and race”, which in turn is dictated by public policy and zoning constraints (Kubrin and Squires, 2012). One of the main ideas presented in the chapter, and also something I can relate to, is suburban sprawl. Apart from the fact that my neighborhood (in Long Island) is predominantly white, I can agree that it has access to “products and services associated with the good life . . .health, education, employment” (Kubrin and Squires, 2012). Additionally, my commute to school makes me realize that as you get closer to the city, the more racially and ethnically diverse the stops on the LIRR become even though they are middle-class neighborhoods. Hence, it is no surprise when the chapter mentions that the residential choices many families make are ultimately involuntary and segregated in nature due to calculating public policies that limit opportunities for people of color. Employment is just one example. Furthermore, I found the ending of the chapter to be quite appealing, especially for our project on affordable housing. The mentioned “alliances” between affordable housing and school-choice groups or between governments and “transit-oriented” developers in low-income communities offer plausible solutions the cyclic dilemma plaguing the city.
Discussion Question: Would the “uncommon alliances” mentioned in the chapter be readily endorsed by mayor De Blasio and his administration?
References
- Hayden, D. (1995) “Claiming Urban Landscapes as Public History” and “Urban Landscape History: The Sense of Place and the Politics of Space,” from The Power of Place, p. 1-43.
- Squires, G. and Kubrin, C. (2012). “Privileged Places” from The Community Development Reader, p. 347-352.
