In our studies thus far regarding the New York City urban landscape, we were able to attribute the widening inequality gap to a multitude of issues. These issues included urban renewal, gentrification, and community control. Further investigation of these problems leads to one root cause, unequal division of political power. Though equal rights have been extended to all on paper and representation comes in many forms (the vote, the right to organize and protest, interest groups) historically oppressed minorities continue to exist as a disadvantaged group.

In the readings, disadvantaged groups were limited by their oppressors politically, economically, and socially. For example, women were made subservient to their husbands through domestic roles and as a result became dependents. They served as emotional support, child care, and physical pleasure, but often did not receive reciprocated service from their spouses. People involuntarily excluded from the work place were made dependents on the welfare system, where their basic rights were infringed upon because of their dependence. Racism barred equally and sometimes more qualified minority candidates from employment. In these roles, it is difficult to gain a footing in politics because as a disadvantaged group your voice is made less significant.

In a previous reading, the ghetto firehouse closures targeted poorer neighborhoods as a grander scheme to force them out. Wealthier neighborhoods, with a stronger political force were able to have that firehouses reopened even though fires more often affected ghettos. Their basic rights to services were purposefully withheld and some residents had no choice but to flee. Neighborhoods fighting gentrification tried pushing for affordable units in new developments. However, these units don’t reflect the true need of the group and costs of goods rise as businesses begin catering to the newcomers. The original residents were forced out as they moved to more affordable neighborhoods. Even though this seemed like a policy victory the force of gentrification undermined the original goal.

Though these problems appear hopeless in the sense that one group wins and another continues to suffer with a limited ability of backlash, I don’t believe the poor can be forced out of the city. In the readings, it said the wealthy classes owned the means of production and profitted off of the labor of the working class. The wealthy are therefore dependent on the poor and middle class. If the lower classes organized and refused to sell their service then their concerns would be more respected since they would gain the upper hand of the dependent- dependee relationship. If the poor were forced out, no one would be left to fill the roles of menial and low skilled jobs. Their income levels would not allow them to move to middle class suburban outskirts, much less afford to travel to work every day. I think that the rich cannot exist if there is no lower group to exploit, but there is a limit to how much you can take advantage of them before they revolt.

Discussion Question: What is the limit of gentrification, urban renewal, and displacement that the city can experience before it is no longer functional?

Can disadvantaged groups and the wealthy ever exist on a level playing field in a capitalistic, neoliberal society?

In the article, “Urban landscapes as public history,” Dolores Hayden proposes different perspectives on gender and race to broaden the practice of public history. Hayden outlines the elements of social history of urban space to connect people’s lives and livelihoods to the urban landscape as it changes over time. She then explains how communities and professionals can tap the power of historic urban landscapes to nurture public memory. She believes that teaching historians, artists, architects and planners to work together with the people and communities who occupy certain places is key to recover aspects of public memory, specifically those involving women and ethnic minorities. This provides a sense of shared authority among those that have political power to preserve urban landscapes. I agree with Hayden that the construction of community-based public history should be with the focus of the place/location. There needs to be emphasis on recognizing the place of African Americans, women, and immigrants in building and contributing to the city’s political and economic issues.

Location is key to determine not just the market value of a home, but also plays an important factor that determines the good life and many people’s access to it in the metropolitan. In short, place and neighborhood matters. Access to decent housing, safe neighborhoods, good schools, and other benefits is largely influenced by the community in which one resides in. Individual initiative, intelligence, and experience are obviously important, but understanding the opportunity structure in the United States today requires connecting it to individual characteristics and location. Kubrin and Squire in the article, “Privileged places” explain how race and location structure urban areas, communities, and policies. They believe that “privilege cannot be understood outside the context of place.” They believe a central feature of place that can change the opportunity structure of urban communities is the role of race. Racial composition of neighborhoods has long been at the center of public policy and private practice in the creation and destruction of communities and in determining access to the elements of the “good life.” I agree with the author’s viewpoints that place and race continue to be the defining characteristics of the opportunity structure in metropolitan areas. This eventually leads to people of the same race and of the same financial status to reside in similar neighborhoods, often leading to segregation. Many associate race, ethnicity, and economic background to where one lives, often this leads to rejection for a job or even loan for housing. Disentangling the impact of these two forces is difficult, but where one lives and one’s racial background are both social issues that significantly shape the privileges and opportunities that other people may enjoy. Both articles connect with our class discussion about the major problems such as social inequality and economic inequality and the roots of these problems in which each problem leads to the other.

Questions: How can we address this problem in which race and the location one resides in is not what shapes the different opportunities available? Is there a possible alternative approach in which people can have the same opportunities as other people regardless of the location they reside in?

According to Squires and Kubrin, “privilege cannot be understood outside the context of place.” This is especially true in urban communities. For the most part, place and race define the opportunity structure in urban areas. This concept has been called new urban sociology.  Since people tend to live amongst people of their own race, this unintentionally leads to racial segregation. However, not each race has the same opportunities in the neighborhoods they live in. For example, according to Squires and Kubrin, black middle class neighborhoods are more likely to be located in or near poor neighborhoods than white communities. This proximity gives them less privilege than their white counterparts because they are forced to interact with the poorer communities instead of communities with more opportunities for them.

I found it interesting that employment is considered the most important factor in determining opportunity for people. I always grew up hearing that education was the most important factor in getting ahead in life. However, Squires and Kubin believe that employment is more important than education. One major problem with employment is that it can be extremely biased.  Employers sometimes pre-judge potential employees based on what neighborhood they live in. They assume that because you come from a certain area, you have a certain set of skills, or certain attributes. While not relating to employment, there was a similar mindset where I grew up. People in Westchester county draw these “mental maps” based on what town you live in. I know I have personally assumed something about a kid when I heard which part of Westchester they were from. People do it without realizing, and in terms of employment it can be extremely detrimental. People do not live in poorer neighborhoods by choice, they live there because they cannot afford to live anywhere else. The only chance they have to move out is to find a well-paying job, which is hard since employers do not want to hire people from the neighborhoods they live in. It is a vicious cycle, that is hard to stop.

Discussion question: Is it possible for employers and people to stop drawing “mental maps,” or are people doomed to be stuck in that cycle?