Hey Noelia, I enjoyed reading your blog!

I had a very similar initial assessment of the High Line as the one you describe in the beginning of your blog when I went there. I had felt welcome and realized nothing suspicious of the environment.

I could not agree more about your comparison to the architectural ways that the city patrols the use of certain spaces. I myself was thinking of how on the train stops they do not have one long flat bench like they use to, but have seat divides so the homeless cannot sleep there. I looked at the link you attached and that was a really good compliment to “inconspicuous surveillance methods” that are discussed in our reading. Not only do some of the images stop homeless people from sleeping in places, but also, as with the image of the fire hydrant with spikes on it, even a person who wants to rest a moment cannot lean on it.

I think that your architectural comment fits very well with the High Line’s construction. Much of the path that has been created for the High Line is relatively narrow, and as you point out, it is made for walking. The design for the park was created for that purpose in mind.   It makes it really hard to loiter even if you are not a homeless person. As you point out sleeping on the High Line can actually be acceptable, but that is that the way in which the structure functions and how they control its uses only certain types of people even visit the High Line and, therefore, are people that are “socially acceptable” to nap in a public space.

At the end of your blog you ask how public space is really public and that’s an excellent question. I think that there really is no place that is completely public in the ideal way that it should be. As you say, the High Line is only public for some individuals so to others it becomes private. This is something that can be seen throughout the city. When you go to parks or areas that are created with the idea that they will be for elites then anyone else ends up being excluded. At the same time, some of the poorest neighborhoods in the city, in a way, also become private to higher-class individuals; this is more by their choice, but at the same time the argument can be made that they are not welcome regardless.

I find it pretty sarcastic that Bloomberg declared, “ ’The [board’s] ruling is a great win for all New Yorkers’ ” (56). He may be the mayor, but he choosing to support this has nothing to do with helping every single individual in New York. It might help the economy, but the needs of the individual people are not being addressed. As soon as Bloomberg saw what an increase in value the properties all around the High Line would get and that it could potentially get the 2012 Olympics for New York City he jumped on the plan. What is completely left out of the reports that made him agree to the plan is what would happen to all the people in the neighborhood. With property values skyrocketing, there must have been a displacement of a great portion of the population due to the “super gentrification” that Loughran describes. Building a park like this does not get rid of all the homeless people it just makes them disappear from the eyes of tourists and other elites so that a certain image can be upheld for the area. What appeared to be solving a problem just displaced it somewhere else.

Eleni