Before I read Kevin Loughran’s article, I never imagined the High Line as a privileged space. Granted, I’ve only been there once with my sister, but we certainly didn’t feel unwelcome or excluded, in fact, no one really paid attention to us. But after reading Kevin Loughran’s article, I came to realize that the space itself might not be as public as it seems on the surface.

Take for example, the “inconspicuous surveillance methods” and “…institutionalized social control to regulate the socio-spatial practices of park users” that the Friends of the High Line rely on to monitor the park. In this way, people who partake in “quality of life violation” acts (like bottle collecting), are effectively excluded from the park area, thus, decreasing the actual public-ness of the supposed public space!

These subtle surveillance methods used in the High Line remind me of another (not as subtle) tactic used by the City: the use of architecture to deter certain populations from being in an area. Examples of the architecture include placing spikes on the ground (to prevent the homeless from sleeping on sidewalks) or metal hoops or plates on doors (to prevent sex workers from loitering outside doors), and many more. The website listed below archives photos of “bum-free” architecture taken around the world, including NYC. What I found most striking in these photos is that a lot the architecture is in places that I consider to be very public areas! It seems that even sidewalks have been subject to a “continuum of privilege!”

Going back to the High Line, Loughran mentions the act of sleeping on the High Line. He mentions that sleeping is something that’s normally looked down upon when done in public, and I think this is because many have the image of a homeless person sleeping in public (which is what Loughran refers to as another “quality of life violation”). Yet, on the High Line, Loughran mentions that it’s natural to see some people sleeping. So what is the difference between sleeping in places like the High Line and sleeping in other public areas, like the sidewalk for example? Is it just a difference between the types of people sleeping and what’s socially accepted to do in our society? But who decides what’s socially acceptable to do in public in our city? Is is organizations like the Friends of the High Line that provide funding that dictate social norms in public places? Perhaps it does have to do with the fact that the High Line is better funded than other parks because of the neoliberalizion Loughran refers to. Or is it just the functions of the places (e.g. because sidewalks are made for walking no one should be sleeping? However, I would also argue that the High Line is certainly a highly pedestrian area as well)?

I think that by looking at the “inconspicuous surveillance methods” and “…institutionalized social control to regulate the socio-spatial practices of park users” of the High Line and the use of architecture to deter certain marginalized populations from congregating or doing certain acts, we can see what Loughran refers to when he states that “public spaces such as the High Line express the relationships among citizens, the state, and other institutions of power.” In other other words, public spaces reflect what we as a society value. And for some reason, society as whole doesn’t look upon the homeless population sleeping in public areas favorably, but people who sleep on the High Line are looked as totally normal.

Looking at Mayor de Blasio’s “Community Parks Initiative,” I’m wondering what a fresh coat of paint and a set of new swings are really going to do. Sure, it might attract more people and offer better opportunities for interaction within communities, but what else is this going to do? Is the initiative supposed to make underfunded parks in underserved communities more like parks such as the High Line- popular tourist areas and profit-based? I think it’s important to question what City officials or we really want out of public areas.

The readings for this week and the supplemental website I provided below certainly make me question how public a public space really is. In a sense, the High Line is public- but only for certain individuals, which makes it private to others. A sidewalk is (in most cases) definitely a public space, but it also seems to function like the High Line as a “continuum of privilege” where certain acts and people are excluded and others welcomed.

Additional Works

1. http://www.dismalgarden.com/archives/defensive_architecture/bum-free/new%20york%20city

Hey Ariana! GREAT blog post! I really feel like your post helped me understand the significance of rezoning a lot better!

I found it very interesting that you kept bringing up rezoning as a way that was meant to “better the City” or “help the City” in city planners’ eyes (although you do effectively argue against rezoning as a beneficial practice in my eyes). On the surface, rezoning seems to be an effective method of redevelopment, but your blog post made me really curious as to what what making the City “better” really means and what people actually benefit when planners try to make the City “better!”

I think, from the readings this week and the extra articles you provided, that rezoning isn’t the best method for redevelopment. In your blog post you saw the significance of rezoning through the impacts on the areas being rezoned themselves, using gentrification as an example. I’m so glad that you mentioned the expansion of Columbia University in your blog because I had a lot of similar thoughts on the issue as you did. No doubt, Columbia brings diverse groups of people to the area but I’m just as skeptical as to how beneficial this expansion is on the surrounding residents as you are! Will the 19% of families that make between $10,000 to $25,000 in the area really benefit as much as people traveling to Columbia will? I also think that redevelopment of the area will invite gentrification to take place. So how does this make the city “better?” It makes it “better” for those outside the area, but those within it become victims to the raising costs of living. It seems like rezoning only accomplishes to make the city “better” for another group of people rather than the current residents of an area.

On a side note, isn’t gentrification sort of expected as a result of rezoning areas in a capitalist society and urban landscape like ours? It’s totally normal and logical that people are driven to areas with lower rent, so is it necessarily a bad or unexpected thing that the- as you put it- “ethnic landscape” changes because of gentrification? Perhaps shifting the current populations of residents to a more “desired” (as according to whomever is planning or contributing money to the rezoning efforts) population has to do with what city planners refer to when wanting to “better” the City? In other words, is gentrification the desired effect of rezoning practices in making our City “better?” And if gentrification is a natural process in our capitalist society, then perhaps rezoning as a tactic for redevelopment isn’t the main issue to tackle, but looking at why populations of people can’t make enough money to support themselves is? 

The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times articles exemplify your point exactly! Although de Blasio’s rezoning efforts are to help residents, he might essentially be pushing residents out because of increasing housing prices. I found it interesting that in the Wall Street Journal article, it quotes several administration officials saying, that “it was impossible to build units for low-income families in East New York through zoning alone because of current market conditions in the neighborhood.” It seems that rezoning doesn’t achieve everything city planners might be aiming for! And it’s evident that this rezoned area is “better” for everyone, except current low-income residents! Going back to my discussion on gentrification, it’s ironic that de Blasio is rezoning an area as part of his Affordable Housing Initiative, yet the area might end up gentrified! 

Overall, wonderful blog post! I had a lot of fun trying to decipher what rezoning does to make the City “better” and who a “better” city really serves.