Author Archives: Lynda Houng

Katz- Response

Leave a reply

In Katz’s reading, what caught my attention was the categorization of the poor. Katz wrote how Ken Auletta wrote an article about four types of poor: passive, hostile, hustler, and traumatized. Each category of the poor seems to degrade them in general. However, Auletta does not focus on those who are poor because they are immigrants, do not have much education in America, but are still working hard to move upward. Auletta, in my opinion seems to criticize all the poor in general, and saying how lazy, violent, unlawful, and useless they are. But there are many people who are poor that do not deserve that kind of harsh criticism.

What was interesting was the New York City’s Charity Organization Society, which wanted to deal with the issue of poverty. It said poverty must be drained and purified rather than “walling it about.” However, I am not quite sure what this means, though I do agree poverty should be dealt with. I believe there is no way to completely wipe out poverty, but it can be diminished and the negative affects that come with it can be lessened as well. In Peopling of New York City, my class kept mentioning the importance of education, which I also agree is the foundation and support which without can lead to poverty.

Katz finally mentions two categories of poor: undeserving and deserving. What I still do not understand is why are the widows under deserving poor? They do try their best to keep work and raise children. The only Katz mentions is that they failed to save money for possible situations of losing a spouse (“episode of dependence”). If that is true, but the widows are still trying to find a job to have an income and try to raise a family simultaneously, I do not think the widows are deserving of poverty. To me, deserving poor are the ones who choose to not get an education, choose to get involved in drugs and illegal activities, and those who do not work hard.

To continue on about importance of education, Katz even mentions how the War of Poverty targeted schooling rather than helping people in the labor market. This reminds me of the quote “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” If you help provide cheap yet helpful education to people, they can learn and develop skills that can help them in the labor market. Instead of finding them one job, education and skills can help people get multiple of jobs. In addition, this method helps people to not be so dependent on the government. People still have to work hard in school to get where they want to go in life.

With that in mind, I do not think the government today is helping in that way. Tuition rates constantly rise, with no additional benefits. Adding on to that, it is more and more difficult to get a job when one graduates from college, and thus it makes sense that there was and is the constant dilemma of the large economic class gap. More people are falling into the middle and lower class, and some still in the poverty level because of family circumstances, than moving upward. Action truly must be taken by the government to fix this situation, or I believe poverty might worsen.

Freeman Reading Response

Leave a reply

In the reading, Wilson states that the socioeconomic composition of one’s neighbors determine how one’s life will become (i.e. if your neighbors are successful, you will strive to be like them). I am torn with this statement. I agree with what Wilson said in the sense that people affect each other. A similar example is friends and how they peer pressure one another to be like each other. If you surround yourself with hard working people, it pushes you to work hard as well, or then you feel like you do not fit in. However, when I look at my neighborhood, there are many people who just keep to themselves. I do not see them changing and trying to “become” like the rest of the neighborhood. I think the problem with Wilson’s statement is that people are only affected by others if they have a close relationship. If people live near each other, but do not interact, there will not be that much of an effect among each other.

I think the idea of vouchers is better than placing people with similar incomes all in one area. And I agree with policy makers that mixing classes is the solution for housing problem. However, I think there is a thin line within that answer. For instance, I do not think wealthy people would want to live with poor people, nor can poor people afford to live where wealthy people live. However, if the classes are more similar such as low income and low-middle income, then it seems more plausible. In addition, a benefit from the mixing of the classes is that it prevents an area to be only grouped by low income people, which gives a sentimentality that the area is labeled as “bad.”

My thoughts of gentrification is torn. I agree with Freeman that although it increases housing costs and can lead to many people leaving, it also has its advantages that it benefits the community because it increases the standard of living in a way. It just all depends on how you look at it–in the short run or in the long run. I wonder by how much does housing costs increases?

I find the statement of the characteristic of the neighborhood and its affect on values and norms of the area interesting. I concur that if neighbors trust each other, they are able to set up proper norms of behavior among the community and also protect the area from threats. That explains why some neighborhoods are more safe than others. However, I believe there are other factors besides trust as well, such as how neighbors have to look out for each other and care for one another.

Freeman mentions that affluent neighbors influence institutions in a neighborhood, which benefits it. Although this may be true, I also think it works the other way. The Upper West Side used to be an unsafe place to live (think “West Side Story” with the gangs). However, once the tenements in the area were demolished, institutions such as Lincoln Center was built which enhanced the neighborhood. Not only do people affect the community, but what the community has to offer attracts the people. It is like a never ending cycle, in which both sides influence one another.

Braconi’s “In Re In Rem”- Response

Leave a reply

Braconi mentions how housing was affected when Caucasians moved out and left the inner cities filled with minorities such as African Americans and Latinos. He states how these minorities usually had lower income and were jobless many of the times, thus rents were difficult to collect. The lack of rent money obtained would then lead to poor building maintenance and operations. This reminded me of the Pruitt-Igoe documentary. With a lack of sufficient funding, there comes the poor quality of life.

What baffles me still is that all these articles we read, there are many observations made with race, income, and living/housing style. What there is a lack of is why these minorities have a difficult time finding jobs and receiving a better income. There is always a concept that education brings people out of poverty. But I do believe there was public education back then. So, how come many minorities are still stuck in the “slums and ghettos?”

Continuing on, Braconi also states how two-thirds of New York’s housing stock is for rental and not for owner-occupied housing. Apparently this is the reverse case for most large cities. If so, I want to know why this is the case. And if this is a factor contributed to New York’s housing disinvestment, why does New York continue to follow with this idea? It does not seem to be too beneficial in the housing market and negatively affects people. Also, rentals are less likely to have long-term investments, so maintaining the building is not the rental owner’s priority. This has negative affects on the building as well. Overall, these adverse traits of rental housing should mean the city should move away from them, but it is not doing so.

Another issue I am curious about is where do all the people who are displaced move to? More than 60% of the buildings were said to be vacant–then where do the people live? This definitely does not show that there is a housing problem in terms of places to live. Instead, it shows the housing problem in terms of affordable housing. Later when Braconi mentions the relocation of people, it still does not say exactly where, which is what I want to know.

Moving forward in the reading, I though Braconi’s statement of how the Koch administration was under no obligation to deal with the housing abandonment situation and the fact that this choice further caused financial problems for the city’s budget disagreeable. The city may not be legally obligated to make this decision, but the role of the government is to govern/manage its people. By dealing with housing, it is in fact helping its people. In addition, although it was a burden on the city’s budget in the short run, I believe it actually helped the city in the long run. Abandoned housing lowers the living standards of an area, therefore by trying to prevent this event from happening too much, the government is trying to preserve the neighborhood. But just like Braconi says at the end, the government did fail in reducing tax for low-income housing. This would have helped the people more, but then, you still see a similar problem even today. Things have not really changed.

 

Selling the City in Crisis- Response

Leave a reply

In the chapter, I found it a surprise how New York City’s ratings in the 1970s were so poor. One of the reasons stated by Harries Brenton was because the city had “bad publicity…because of crime, strike, and welfare, etc.” Although this may be true, I find the comment arguable. A city would statistically have more crime and welfare because there are more people. In addition, a city would have more strikes because there are more jobs. I find this particular reason made by Brenton for the low rating of New York more of a correlation than causation.

What also shocked me was the fact that the highways did the opposite of what was thought to happen. Instead of bringing commuters to the city to work, the companies left the city to set up in the suburbs. I was a bit unclear why this would happen, besides the fact that taxes are lower. Perhaps it is because from what I see now, there are more businesses in the city than in the suburbs (specifically the location of large companies). I always thought being in the city would be ideal because it is connected closer to other businesses, and if people from other countries want to work with a company, being in the city is easier and more convenient. I would rather go to London than Purbeck (a small, not well-known city in England).

In addition, it is interesting that once these businesses leave, the city declines. This reminds me of the phrase “Corporate America” and how business really affects and influences life. Are we the only country that has cities that are only sustainable if there are businesses? I can think of examples of Detroit and Philadelphia where they used to have a lot of business because of the manufacturing industry; however, once society moved towards service industry, these places lost work and now the cities have low standard of living. There must be a solution to this problem.

I enjoyed how this reading has a marketing-style view on how New York City was “rebranded.” The ABNY used the “power breakfast” which at first was not too successful and cost a lot of money. However, by using important people to talk, it is like an endorsement/sponsorship. People listen and pay attention to famous, important, high-up people. Furthermore, I finally know how the phrase ” The Big Apple” came about. It is creative and smart how ABNY was able to reimage the city. I was shocked that they spent money on policing, when all this time I thought it was the mayor. Also, how ABNY pushed the image of the apple as New York is incredible because it is still seen today. Although there was a lot of money put into all of this, ABNY truly was successful. It is inspiring to see how marketing can play a role to change/”revamp” the city. I used to think marketing was for business, but now I see it can also be to market a city to fit a certain image.

However, one thing that amazed me was the fact ABNY tried to censor television. This reminds me of how China censors everything that goes against their own country. I was just surprised ABNY was kind of able to get away with it, because isn’t this hindering the first amendment of freedom of speech? Yes, by not talking about mugging in Central Park you prevent the public from hearing and knowing anything bad happening. Yet, on the other hand, you are misleading them and possibly making them naive to the dangers that can happen.

 

Design for a New Metropolis- Response

Leave a reply

In this reading I was shocked to find that Moses was not as large as an influence on the slum clearings and low standard of living in certain poor areas of New York City. The chapter mentions how NYCHA was the backbone and Moses just extended/implemented the ideas. I knew these low-cost housing were crowded and cramped. However, it was unknown to me that these housings lacked toilet bowl covers and closet doors. Is it really that much cheaper to not have those parts in the house?

This reading also mentions slum clearances versus vacant land projects. The clearance policy seems to be attacked. I do agree that it demolished many buildings that were still in good condition, and that some of those buildings are aesthetically better than the new ones that were built. However, thinking about it on the financial and economic side, it might be easier to rebuild rather than “renovate.” But indeed, I do believe the slum clearance in general was terrible because many people lost their homes and were forced to find elsewhere to live, or to be cramped up in different neighborhoods.

In the section by the critics, I strongly agree with Lewis Mumford that the housing seemed to be built for one class of people. In other words, the way the city seems to be laid out is to benefit one class of people more than others. In New York City, I see that the outer edges and parts of way Upper Manhattan are full of housing that are for people on the lower side of the social class. And in the center of the city, where it is the most dense, the buildings are for people on the higher side of the social class. Yes the city does offer a lot of housing, but again, as I mentioned in previous blog posts, majority of the housing are not affordable. They are all new and fancy and pleasant, but the cost is not cheap at all. Overall, I believe that the city was planned for high middle class to upper class people, and everyone else was just shoved to the sides.

Another problem stated was about the design of housing (specifically public housing). Moses has criticized that the buildings were all the same and monotonous. His response was that it although cost was a concern, there must be other ways to make the buildings a bit more pleasant. I did notice that all the projects look the same: brown, small windows, small grass area blocked by low black gates/fences, etc. It does look mundane, and to New Yorkers, seeing a building like that, we all automatically think “project.” This takes away from the aesthetics of the city structure. Architecture is really important. It is the foundation and the roots of the city. I agree with Moses that there must be ways to make these buildings better, without adding too much expenses on it.

Furthermore, the problem with projects is that there is a lack of stores near the housing. Bloom says that this takes away the “liveliness and social cohesiveness” of the area. I concur with Bloom’s statement because my dorm used to be near Baruch Houses and my current dorm is right near the projects as well, and both do not have stores nearby. This also relates to how in the beginning of the semester, we read an article about how stores bring safety to the neighborhood. In addition, this reminds me of the Barclay’s Center how Atlantic Avenue is full of stores and lights, and is really safe, while Flatbush Avenue lacks stores and is dark, and appears to be dangerous. I do understand that stores do not really want to be in the area, and that their business might not be as successful there rather than elsewhere. And that the stores that were built just seemed to not do so well that many were demolished. I wonder why that is the case, and if there is any way to improve the situation, and make the stores function better/well.

The Power Broker- Response

Leave a reply

There always seems to be a conflicting view of Robert Moses and his legacy of building New York City. Although he evicted hundreds of thousands of people and displaced them, he did build over 600 playgrounds, and numerous of new apartments, parks, beaches, highways, and bridges. No matter what people think of Moses, there is no doubt that he is a ruthless, power-driven, accomplished man. Personally, I am just quite shocked how much power Moses was able to obtain. I feel in present day, there is no one like him, or anyone who can become him. For instance, Moses was able to threaten Mayor Wagner that he would resign his position, which made Wagner oblige to Moses’ wishes. In a way, I admire his ability to control and influence.

What I wonder is, what will New York and the rest of America be like without Robert Moses? By building highways/expressways and bridges, Moses did connect cities and states together. Furthermore, expansion was able to occur (i.e. expansion of different living opportunities to suburbs). In addition, although people like Jane Jacobs do not think Moses beautified New York in any way, the parks and beaches that he developed can be argued to add aesthetics to places. At least he did not only focus on buildings and infrastructures.

In Caro’s reading, it is mentioned that Moses was able to keep the public from finding out what he was doing. People did not know about his personal life nor did they always know what he was doing in his job (what his plans were). Today, this would almost be impossible. Because Moses was able to “hide” from public eye, he was able to get away with his projects. However, nowadays, there would be much scrutiny and what Moses was doing would be categorized as “off-the-books.” This can also explain why there is no other “Robert Moses” in present day.

Also, Moses did not let anyone influence him and did not make any compromises. This is important in affecting his projects as well because it means one decision, one thought, one idea. Moses’ projects will be accomplished because he only has himself to listen to rather than waiting to get approvals from other people. If Moses had to ask others for acceptance, and if they were not satisfied, he would have to change his plans. With Moses being the only one who made decisions and actions, he was able to work on and complete his projects quickly. Similarly to the previous paragraph, nowadays, this would not like happen. There are more people/committees one has to go through in order to carry out a project. In my opinion, in present day, because of that, it takes longer to complete anything.

Overall, it is fascinating how one business-architect can have as much power as a politician, and even more at times. He was even able to win against President Franklin Roosevelt. Moses was the very few, or possibly the only one, who was able to “get away” with negatively affecting those who are in the lower social class (i.e. people he evicted). This shows that with power, one can do anything. Moses is the only one who is the best at what he dose, which puts him at an advantage as well. Can another Robert Moses rise? Probably not under today’s circumstances–that are full of stricter and harsher regulations.

Museum of City of New York

Leave a reply

At the visit to the museum, I found the statistics that we went through very interesting, yet some of them not too shocking. First, it came to me no surprise about the distribution of types of living groups in specific locations of the city. The nuclear families, which consisted of 18% of the population, mostly stayed in parts of Queens and Brooklyn. This is not surprising because that is the location of suburbs. It is usually stated that families live in suburbs because there are more houses there, which gives more living room for growing families, especially for kids. Another non-shocker is that singles consist of 33% of the population, and most of them stay in Manhattan. Since families make up suburbs, singles make up the city. Also, they have more money to spend on themselves (rather than on a family), so they can afford to live in the city. Furthermore, being in the Manhattan makes commuting to work easier. In addition, the living space in the city is smaller, which fits single people better. And finally, the night life that the city offers attracts many young single people to want to live here.

What was interesting was how in 1800, the population in New York City was 60,515 people and in 2011, the population was 8,244,900. The curve that was displayed was exponentially growing, with it leveling at the top. I think the reason there was rapid growth could be sanitary/health improvements, immigration, and the baby boom generation. I wonder if there are other factors involved to explain the rapid growth.

One of the interesting and surprising facts I learned today was that the government regulated that no more than three unrelated adults are allowed to live together. I want to know when and why was this regulation implemented, and how come the maximum number is three rather than four. What if the living space is big enough for four people? Relating to that, it was shocking to me when the curator said rent postings on Craigslist are sometimes illegal because they do not follow housing regulations. If this is the case, then are housing authorities doing anything to stop it?

The last shocking information that I discovered today was New York only came in number 17 as the top single-person household city in America. Seattle, Denver, San Francisco, and Boston are large cities, but they are not larger than New York. That is why I am shocked New York ranked that low. When I think of singles, I think New York is a great place because of the vast amount of opportunities here. However, there is the counterargument that New York has one of the highest standard of living, so it may be expensive for many people.

With the statistics of types of people living in New York, it shows that more single people are here rather than nuclear families. It does make sense that the new buildings that are built in the city are in the idea of non-nuclear families. I see so many apartments in not only the city, but also in places like Long Island City, Roosevelt Island, etc. But the problem is still the cost. I am constantly trying to find apartments to rent in the city, but the prices is always the obstacle for me. When I drive on the Queensboro Bridge, I always see apartment complexes but many of the rooms are empty. This shows that places to live are available, but I think the costs is what prevents people from living there.

The most eventful part of the museum visit for me was Bloomberg’s adAPT NYC to build micro-units. I found the model apartment quite fascinating, and it really makes me want to live there. It really does conserve space because everything seems to be foldable/convertible. Compared to my dorm room, this micro unit is larger, and it would be great that I would not have to share the bathroom, kitchen, and living space with someone else. I am excited for when this project is complete, but again, I think the price of it will be the issue at hand. But, there do seem to be some downsides for this micro-unit. First, it looks like people will be living in really close-knit within the building, based on what the video displayed. It is great there they are planning to build a rock-climbing area, a pool on the roof, etc. However, it just looks really cramped and crowded. Second, the fact that many things have to be folded/pulled/pushed out can be daunting. Also, the portable chair and dinner table looks small, low, and uncomfortable. But overall, if the price is not too expensive, I would rather live here than in a dormitory.

Subsidy and the Suburban Dream- Response

Leave a reply

In the reading, the Greenbelt Program was mentioned. In my opinion, the plan already seemed improbable because Tugwell said the community would have “decent housing” yet the land he would purchase to develop the community would be cheap. He also seems to disregard the people who are in the lower class (and some in the lower range of the middle class). Where does he expect them to live then–if he demolishes the cities to build parks? Furthermore, communities that Tugwell wants reminds me of those societies that you see on TV shows/movies such as “The Stepford Wives.” These “ideal” societies just do not work.

Furthermore, a general concept from the reading that I extracted was how the government plays a roll in aiding housing construction. They help with loans and mortgages, give building construction standards, etc. However, some people such as Senator Calder do not think the government should be involved with housing (specifically the construction and acquisition). I do think that the government should not be too involved, but if it sees that its people are in need of aid for shelter, it does have the duty to help its people. Although there was the HOLC and FHA, I still see housing as a problem. Perhaps it is the fact that I live in New York City, which is known for its high standard of living. We do have a lot of housing options, I think, but the prices are just too high.

An interesting quote by FHA is that “if a neighborhood is to retain stability, it is necessary that properties shall continue to be occupied by the same social and racial classes.” I agree with the fact that social classes in a neighborhood should be the same. It is just the fact that rich people only stay with people that are alike them, which is connected to the racial class. But I see this less so, because in a city that is said to be very diverse, there are different nationalities all living in one area. In my neighborhood in Queens, my neighbors are Chinese, Islamic, Jewish, Italian, German, Ecuadorian, and so on. However, our social standings are in the range of middle class. Therefore, racial class similarities in a neighborhood are not entirely true, but social class similarities are more so.

Continuing on, the FHA was said to not be created to help cities, however by reviving home buildings and supporting home ownership and trying to reduce poverty, FHA is helping to shape cities. The program is trying to make cities a better place that is not full of projects and crime. It is making cities a place that is desirable to live in. If the city becomes a stable place where people own houses, then it is like a chain, which attracts more people to own and have houses in the area as well. Although this is a beneficial part of the program, the reading is correct in saying that the downside of FHA is that it increases segregation among income and racial groups (though again, I do not think the racial part has much separation–but there are exceptions like East New York, Flushing, etc.).

Finally, I disagree with the statement at the end of the reading that said areas with heterogeneous population is terrible and risky because it will lead to “decline of both the human race and property values.” I think of New York City, and I see the opposite. Maybe it is because they are thinking about suburbs. However, New York as a whole seems to disprove it (especially the borough of Queens in my opinion). I believe the mentality of people, the way they were raised, and how they were educated affects how they see race. New York City does not show the decline of human race, but the expansion and growth and acceptance of differences among people. Also, the value of the land here is quite high. I wonder what makes NYC so special and prosperous and different than other cities.

 

Wilkerson Warmth of Others Suns- Response

Leave a reply

In the book (part II), I found it interesting how Miss Theenie does not approve of David because his skin tone was dark, although they are the same race. No matter what, Ida’s suitor must have lighter skin even if he is African American, in Miss Theenie’s point of view. This concept shows that is it about ethnicity or race, but more about outer appearance. Unfortunately, in modern day, skin tone is still highly valued. For Asians, I know having light (close to white skin) is very important, that there are actual beauty products you can buy in stores to try to help you look lighter.

As we discussed in class, long time ago, children walking to school my themselves was not a horrific, terrifying event for parents. In the story, it was said that the children formed a walking train together (a bit like a school bus, in which the child living the farthest away “picked up” other children along the way). If children went to school in groups today, I believe parents would be less nervous and scared. In addition, the community looked out for the kids. When it was raining, the elders of the neighborhood cut down a tree to form a bridge for the children to cross to go to school. Today, I feel like people keep to themselves more and do not care for others as much.

The way life was and how to survive based on the book seems more physical than in today’s world. The labor is more about strength (e.g. picking and hauling cotton, planting crops, tending to animals and slaughtering them, etc.) rather than intellectual labor (e.g. being a lawyer, doctor, businessman). In addition, people seemed to have more courage back then. I found the part where Ida stabbed and killed the snake quite disgusting, and I know I can not do that. I feel most people today cannot do what she did–we live in a society where we do not interact with nature that much. If a snake were to be seen in the city, someone would call for animal control immediately. Most people would not take it into their hands to deal with the situation, and others would run away.

An idea that was valued back then that is somewhat still now is gender choice of children. Ida was really upset when she found out she had a girl, but eventually had a boy on the third try. Similarly to today, men are seen for their masculinity to help around and to work. To be honest, I would want a boy as well. I would not feel as worried if he were out by himself, at night, as I would be worried if I had a girl. Especially since we mentioned how cities can be unsafe, I think I male would be better suited for safety purposes. Then again, I am not too sure about the statistics of which gender is targeted more concerning crimes.

Finally, I want to return to the Part I of the section reading. It is stated how when African Americans moved to the North and West, they were blamed for rise in unemployment, dysfunctional families with children born from wedlock, and an increase in welfare. However, studies have shown that Southern blacks had more people working so unemployment was low, income was higher, not a lot of welfare was through them, and the family households were usually of two parents and not from wedlock, compared to Northern blacks. If this is the case, then why does the stereotype still exist? And how did the stereotype grow? If about 30% of the blacks moved from the South to North/West, and their values are against the stereotype, how did it form in the first place? Because that would mean a lot of African Americans migrants would be countering it, not supporting it.

 

Diagnosis: Battered but Vibrant- Response

Leave a reply

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.