In “Building the Frontier Myth,” Neil Smith talks about the changing attitudes amongst New York City residents and how the thinking about certain neighborhoods has evolved over time. I find it to be very interesting that at one point in time, people had never thought about living on Ludlow Street. No one had heard of Ludlow Street and the residents hoped that this neighborhood would eventually grow up to be another Village in New York. The comparison of crossing Houston Street to pioneers crossing the Rockies showed how dramatic the transition must have been for so many people living in the city at the time.
Overall, this was a period of great change in the urban landscape. The new urban frontier motif not only was about the physical transformation of the built environment but also about a larger cultural change. People were starting to wear the fashion of the urban cowboys. This changing fashion sense in the urban environment in New York was centered in SoHo. In many ways, this part of Manhattan is still known for its new fashion styles and its transformational sense in culture. The residents tend to be artists looking for new inspiration and unique ideas.
In particular, I think that the “Americana West” store represents the sense of change that came across New York at the time. Its theme of a crossover cultural geography between city and desert is applicable to many neighborhoods in New York City today. There are many attempts to bring back styles and use inspiration from other cultures and traditions in New York. For example, Ralph Lauren introducing a collection centered on “the Safari women” to rediscover and reinvent their prominence in gentrification on earlier frontiers.
The use of non-endangered woods in this urban frontier show that although people wanted to bring western influence in the city landscape. This is a good aspect since they were not hurting the environment while they were trying to bring change to the city environment. I agree with the writer that today, the frontier ideology continues to displace social conflict into the realm of myth, and at the same time to reaffirm a set of class-specific and race-specific social norms.
I agree with the definition of gentrifying neighborhoods as bringing a civil class together with a uncivil class and classifying them to which extent civil or uncivil behavior dominates. This determines the extent to which the gentrification was effective and worked in improving the neighborhood. I do not agree with the idea that you need a civilized group to help the uncivilized by defining one as good or bad. I think that the “uncivilized” can be helped through programs and support from the people who are more “civilized.” People should not be labeled as being civil or uncivil because this just creates division in classes.
