The redevelopment of an abandoned railroad into the High Line created a new source of tourism and revenue for the city of New York, attracting foreigners while creating yet another undemocratic and exclusive public space (Reichl 2016) where the homeless are unwelcome (Loughran 2016). As discussed in class, we often talk about the homeless with pity while inadvertently viewing them as criminals under the law, bathing, sleeping and sitting in public areas where they are not wanted. In this week’s reading Kevin Loughran (2014) raises a very interesting comparison of what it is like for a “privileged individual” to sleep in a public space versus a “less privileged” one (p. 14). He writes:
“For privileged individuals visiting the High Line, sleeping in public space represents an enormous luxury; for less privileged individuals—such as homeless people, poor people, and people of color—sleeping in public space carries the stigma of poverty and potential danger.” (p.14)
Criminalizing the homeless through enforcing laws such as not being allowed to sit on a public sidewalk (National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty (NLCHP) 2014: p. 16) makes it seem like the homeless are there with the intention of disturbing the public, which they themselves are a part of (being that the word “public” is defined as “of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state” (Mirriam Webster n.d.)) and are deliberately and selfishly taking up space so that other people cannot walk by. It makes it seem like they have a choice: to sit there and be a nuisance, or go off to some imaginary space where they will be comfortable and not bother anyone. Some might refer to the latter as a home. In No Safe Place: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities (NLCHP 2014), which clearly explains the extent to which the homeless are criminalized as well as provides alternative ways to handle their presence, it is reported that 74% of homeless people do not know of a secure place to sleep at night where they will not be harassed by the police (p. 16). Rather than criminalizing the homeless for existing, more should be done to provide them with a place to stay. In Northwest, NC there is only room for 17% of the homeless population in the area’s shelters, and Los Angeles, CA doesn’t fall far behind with room in its shelters for only 22% of the homeless population (NLCHP 2014: p.15). There is thus, clearly an issue in this nation in regards to blaming the homeless for being in a public space—which, by definition of the term, they belong in—when we are not providing a place for them to actually go. The report released by NLCHP (2014) asserts that criminalizing the homeless creates an ineffective revolving door through which the homeless pass from the court system back onto the streets and that “housing, rather than jailing, homeless people is the much more successful and cost-effective option” (p.30). Instead of forcing the homeless to be a part of this vicious cycle more needs to be done on a political level to provide them with a place to stay where they will not be harassed.
The quote featured above (Loughran 2014) as well as the case of the homeless brings us back to the question of how public are public spaces? The two words “privileged” and “luxury” provide a clear answer to this question. The High Line is a so-called public space that not only discourages the homeless from visiting and sleeping in it, but also a person of moderate income. Visiting the park 2 years ago it was obvious that it was more suited for high-end people; the apartments nearby were very fancy, designed using unique and modern architectural styles and the vendors situated along the park sold overpriced food and art. I personally felt unwelcome and out of place—it was almost embarrassing to have to ask a man selling ice cream how much it cost and then walk away because it was unaffordable ($7 for an ice cream cone is absolutely ridiculous). Also, the signs everywhere making it known that touching the plants is forbidden made me feel very on edge. The feeling of being watched and the possibility of getting in trouble for so much as touching a blade of grass in a place that was created for me (the public) just didn’t sit well with me.
How can a place designed for the public provide discomfort to so many? When considering the development of a new urban public space planners need to ponder more deeply about who is included in the word public. If they create the space with the intention of attracting a specific social class, perhaps they should consider not deeming it a public space. Furthermore, lawmakers, the public service sector and those involved in the criminal justice system need to reevaluate how to deal with the homeless people in this country. Rather than treating the homeless in an uncivil manner by chastising them for their existence, more shelters should be constructed and new affordable housing units specifically intended for the homeless to move into should be created.
Link to Report by NLCHP (2014): https://www.nlchp.org/documents/No_Safe_Place
References
Loughran K (2014) Parks for Profit: The High Line, Growth Machines, and the Uneven Development of Urban Public Spaces. City & Community 13(1):49-68
Mirriam-Webster Dictionary (n.d.) Definition of Public. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/public (last accessed 16 April 2017)
National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty (NLCHP) (2014) No Safe Place: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities. https://www.nlchp.org/documents/No_Safe_Place (last accessed 16 April 2017)
Reichl A. J. (2016) The High Line and the ideal of democratic public space. Urban Geography 37(6):904-925
Hey Jasmine, I totally agreed with your assessment of the High Line as well as the policies unfairly targeting homeless people.
The High Line seems to have been intended as a sort of vision of NYC’s future, which apparently is an oddly sanitized utopia according to the park’s designers. Although I appreciate the aesthetic appeal of certain areas of the space to some extent, I can certainly relate to your feeling of unease. The High Line seems to be missing the socioeconomic diversity that would be necessary to accurately reflect our city. Although many development projects fall into similar traps, the High Line is the most striking example of this effect in my opinion. You question how a place designed for the public provide discomfort to so many. It seems that development projects such as these, although they claim to serve the public and may in fact do so, are not in reality created in the public’s best interest. The High Line, as you note, is devoid of interactivity; it has a very “look, but don’t touch” vibe. It is meant to reflect something about the area and the politicians and corporations whose public images are tied to it. To them, they are presenting the public with a beautiful space that will bolster public perceptions of their administrations while attracting tourism revenue. To us, it just seems like cultural and spatial whitewashing.
It seems ironic that the High Line hosted the Homeless Museum of Art (link below) while simultaneously promoting a vision of our city that leaves no space for those most deserving of public and governmental support. The statistics you quoted are staggering, and although the High Line is just a small part of a much larger issue, it is certainly emblematic of these powerful people’s opinions on homelessness. The city seems to prioritize creating a bucolic haven for the wealthy, or even cleaning up parks for the underprivileged, over providing all of its residents with beds to sleep in. Policy makers cite crime and health concerns as they try to further limit homeless people’s options, banning them from subways and park benches, all while ignoring the fact that the crime and health issues would decrease dramatically if we treated homeless people like human beings.
http://www.thehighline.org/blog/2012/07/03/homeless-museum-comes-up-to-the-high-line
Hi Jasmine
I think your post brings about an important point of the issue of homelessness. You mentioned one of the points in the article that I found particularly interesting ,as well, of the luxury certain people have of being able to sleep in public space. This idea brought many ideas and questions to my mind. One of the major questions I has was who has the time to sleep in the middle of the day? The answer to that is those who have enough money to have the leisure or those who don’t have any money or job and therefore no where else to go or nothing else to do. However, the only ones who are allowed to do that or rather aren’t condescended for doing that or in respect to the highline even allowed to enter this “public space” are the economically well off or “middle class”. They are allowed to do this because we have evolved in to a society that cares about making a market and profit and therefore creating environments that benefits people that can pay for such an environment.
This neo-liberal mentality gives less attention to social services and the poor because focusing and investing in the poor is not profitable. The neoliberal mentality also has created an environment that serves tourism and visitors because that is profitable instead of creating services for the residents of the neighborhood. It also promotes privatization and with privatization comes deregulation. That is why the people involved with “Friends of the Highline” are able to lack transparency on their permit processes and charge such high prices simply to start an application. With privatization and the remaking of public space as we know it today (public space in the corporate world) comes the limitation of public space in which “undesirables” can be excluded from using this space. This can be by explicit, direct means or indirect means like that feeling discomfort you expressed. This extends to the militarization of public space. Militarization of public space refers to the way that certain public areas have become more hostile to certain groups of people. [You can reference Mike David “Fortress LA”] They have moved to having more security and “safety” opposed to democratic freedom. For example, a place like McDonalds is militarized because people can be told how long to be in the vicinity and what they are allowed to do there. Another example is in the fences that have been created to prevent people from entering parks at night or in some parks making it difficult to participate in certain activities like protests. This militaristic perspective on public space is on the basis of promoting safety. However, it is not safety for all but rather safety for those who can afford it therefore safety for the rich. Thus, not only can the poor not afford to pay for “safety” but they are also looked at as a threat. Therefore, in order to “protect the rich” the poor are sequestered and kept in specific areas.
Thus if the rich are protected by sequestering the poor who protects the poor? What is setup in the criminal justice system to stop repeated offenders or give people support once they get out of prisons? What is in place to help veterans who come back to essentially nothing but psychological damages? What is in place in the education system to ensure that all students have an equal chance for social mobility? I unfortunately do not have answers to these questions. But perhaps the issue is not the poor but rather the profit focused system that fails to support everyone in the city.
Hi Jasmine
I think your post brings about an important point of the issue of homelessness. You mentioned one of the points in the article that I found particularly interesting ,as well, of the luxury certain people have of being able to sleep in public space. This idea brought many ideas and questions to my mind. One of the major questions I has was who has the time to sleep in the middle of the day? The answer to that is those who have enough money to have the leisure or those who don’t have any money or job and therefore no where else to go or nothing else to do. However, the only ones who are allowed to do that or rather aren’t condescended for doing that or in respect to the highline even allowed to enter this “public space” are the economically well off or “middle class”. They are allowed to do this because we have evolved in to a society that cares about making a market and profit and therefore creating environments that benefits people that can pay for such an environment.
This neo-liberal mentality gives less attention to social services and the poor because focusing and investing in the poor is not profitable. The neoliberal mentality also has created an environment that serves tourism and visitors because that is profitable instead of creating services for the residents of the neighborhood. It also promotes privatization and with privatization comes deregulation. That is why the people involved with “Friends of the Highline” are able to lack transparency on their permit processes and charge such high prices simply to start an application. With privatization and the remaking of public space as we know it today (public space in the corporate world) comes the limitation of public space in which “undesirables” can be excluded from using this space. This can be by explicit, direct means or indirect means like that feeling discomfort you expressed. This extends to the militarization of public space. Militarization of public space refers to the way that certain public areas have become more hostile to certain groups of people. [You can reference Mike David “Fortress LA”] They have moved to having more security and “safety” opposed to democratic freedom. For example, a place like McDonalds is militarized because people can be told how long to be in the vicinity and what they are allowed to do there. Another example is in the fences that have been created to prevent people from entering parks at night or in some parks making it difficult to participate in certain activities like protests. This militaristic perspective on public space is on the basis of promoting safety. However, it is not safety for all but rather safety for those who can afford it therefore safety for the rich. Thus, not only can the poor not afford to pay for “safety” but they are also looked at as a threat. Therefore, in order to “protect the rich” the poor are sequestered and kept in specific areas.
Thus if the rich are protected by sequestering the poor who protects the poor? What is setup in the criminal justice system to stop repeated offenders or give people support once they get out of prisons? What is in place to help veterans who come back to essentially nothing but psychological damages? What is in place in the education system to ensure that all students have an equal chance for social mobility? I unfortunately do not have answers to these questions. But perhaps the issue is not the poor but rather the profit focused system that fails to support everyone in the city.