Hey Willow!

I found your blog post very well thought out and intriguing, and was glad that it addressed all the aspects of Loughran’s article. I didn’t initially think of the article in term of “fixing” different neighborhoods, but I easily see how you got there. 

I take issue with Loughran’s argument that the rich only want to fix these “quality of life violations” to destroy neighborhoods. I think that people who are born into specific circumstances and have always lived a certain way can’t fathom why someone would want to hang out on an abandoned rail yard. I don’t think that most people set out with a  mindset of ‘lets destroy the culture and cohesion of this neighborhood so we can all move in!” 

The ‘fetishization’ of the rustic aspect of the High Line is, in my opinion, a way for those in power to  reverse that which they unintentionally did. I find it hard to believe that that people intentionally destroy cultures, but once they realize they have, I have no problem with preserving that which they have destroyed.

If someone asked a rich person to design an ideal park, chances are it would look something like Bryant Park, or the reconstructed High Line. That is not because of malicious intent, it is because you asked a subjective question to a biased person. Because all people are biased! Perhaps the issue is not so much the decisions that rich people keep making, but rather the fact that as a society we tend to keep asking the rich people those questions. If it was easier for those who were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth to get to positions of power where they could make these decisions for their own neighborhoods, These discussions wouldn’t be happening.