In the New York Times article, “Diagnosis: Battered but Vibrant” by Benedict Carey, the continual search with how a community is the way it is is discussed. I found it interesting with what Carey stated, how the characteristic of a neighborhood can affect that neighborhood’s future regarding income/finance and amount of foreclosure. I agree with Carey because using the example of Upper East Side, the neighborhood has many trees and plants, townhouses, little traffic compared to Midtown and Lower East Side, fancy and expensive restaurants and shops, etc.This reflects the income of the people who live in the Upper East Side, which consists of mostly wealthy people. Although I concur with Carey, I also believe that the two come hand in hand, as in they work with each other. Because the neighborhood is nice, people who are well-off live there, and because they are wealthy, they have the money to spend on the community and enhance it even more. It is a bit like a cycle.
What I also found interesting was William Julius Wilson’s comment that if Chatham is able to move past the event of the shooting, then it may show how a neighborhood’s characteristic can get through obstacles and like what Wilson said “prevent out-migration…and strengthen neighborhoods.” I agree with this because if the community is strong and its members care for one another, then the community will endure through challenges. Thus, if anything goes wrong, the people of the neighborhood will least likely bail and leave.
In the article, Carey states that the change in type of people living in a community changes the community’s character, which I think is true. He says that when the older generation moves out, and a younger generation moves in, a lifestyle that leans towards cleanliness, tidiness, and mutual respect disintegrates. The younger people are said to loiter and litter. With that said, a community can become dirtier and possibly dangerous. Loitering can possibly even lead to formation of gangs.
Further on in the article, Carey explains how Chatham is able to survive despite the shootings. The neighborhood is said to have more than a hundred block groups. I have never heard of this phrase before, but it seems great that people in the community are volunteering to see that the environment which they live in is clean and a nice place to live in. I am wondering if these exist in New York City.
Continuing on, what caught my attention as well was how the structure of buildings can affect the neighborhood. In the article, it is suggested that small buildings, all the same style, shape and size is beneficial for a community. Peter Jean said small buildings allow for less intimidation between interaction among neighbors. In addition, he mentioned that if a building has to be vacated and boarded up, a small building will be less noticeable than a larger building. I did not think about this as a way of affecting a neighborhood, but now I can see Jean’s argument. Although I am having a bit of a difficulty coming up with a personal example, his argument seems sound. Maybe a correlative way to look at it is, in those small rural towns, everyone knows each other, so there is more of a sense of a community. Rather than in a large city like Los Angeles, where no one knows each other, there is a lesser feeling of a tight-knit community.
