“Building the Frontier Myth” – Response

Gentrification is a highly controversial issue in urban planning and development. Revitalization of neighborhoods and their economies is contrasted with the uprooting of existing populations and the pricing out of small businesses to create a debate with valid arguments on both sides. Neil Smith’s “Building the Frontier Myth” makes the point that the WIld West myth has been co-opted by the media to characterize urban gentrification as the work of brave “pioneers,” so as to generate a favorable image of the practice among the public.

There is something to be said for the romanticization of Manifest Destiny in American history. Home buyers and business investors would certainly feel happier about being a part of the gentrification of a neighborhood if they could be convinced that they were following in the path of the great frontiersmen who “tamed” the West. I found the excerpt about Times Square to be very interesting.  In that case, the marketing strategy has obviously worked very well. Times Square is probably unrecognizable from what it was in the 80’s and it would be ridiculous to think that people would need any motivation to grab an opportunity to invest there.

One main concern that the author expresses is that equating gentrification to the settling of the West obliterates some fundamental differences between the two movements such as the geographical location and challenges, to name one example. He writes, “Frontier is as much a style as a place.” Urban “cowboys” buy into the myth and completely seize the opportunity to imitate the media-generated, idealized image of the Wild Wild West. Perhaps, in doing so, they show disrespect to the seriousness and magnitude of that time in history. 

Further, as society gets caught up in this exciting myth, real social issues that surround gentrification will be pushed to the side. Gentrification gives rise to a significant social conflict. When local businesses and long-time residents get priced out of their own neighborhoods, only to see the new incumbents being praised for revitalizing, even “saving” the neighborhood as it were, it is a problem. Obviously, to romanticize a policy that gives rise to such serious concerns is not appropriate.

From my personal experience with reading about gentrification, I don’t believe that the Wild West jargon is as prevalently used anymore. But  gentrification is still accorded a degree of superiority i.e., gentrification is seen as something that “improves” a neighborhood. That may be true from a certain perspective but I am not convinced that gentrification “improves” a neighborhood so much as it “replaces” it with a middle-class ideal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.