In “The Flood Next Time”, Murphy introduces the idea of a “flexible adaptation pathway”.  Although, this idea seems logical it simply exemplifies this common attitude of investing in the solution opposed to investing in prevention.  We have seen this as a prominent structural issue that continues to be overlooked.

A common example is that of hurricane Katrina.  This hurricane is considered to have been massively devastating.  However, in reality its impact could have been lessened had the infrastructure like the levees in the poor neighborhoods, been fixed.  This particular event created the question if whether natural disasters are truly “natural”.  Of course hurricanes are arguable a natural occurrence giving that they are a result of nature but the impact and disaster they cause is not natural.  If the infrastructure and preventive measures are in place natural disasters like these can be avoided.  More often than not the infrastructure in low-income neighborhoods is very poor and underinvested.  That is why very often low income individuals are more detrimentally impacted by “natural disasters”.

Neil Smith’s “There’s No Such Thing as a Natural Disaster” explores this idea of vulnerability.  Who remains more vulnerable during natural disasters?  As I said before low-income individuals often minorities are more vulnerable.  This is not coincidental but very much systematic.  In our corporate city we surround ourselves around the market and profit.  If something doesn’t produce revenue or profit it is not a priority to be invested in.  That is why as explained in “The Disaster Inside the Disaster” certain areas like lower Manhattan experience reinvestment and rapid rebuilding while others are left to perish.  This dichotomy shows the environmental injustice present in the city.

The environmental injustice in the city is present in many ways.  It’s present in the form of disaster capitalism which entails taking advantage of a disaster to create a stronger market and devalue the public.  With this mindset privatization essentially strengthens and government support weakens.  Similarly, when a low-income area is reinvested it is in order to promote gentrification.  This introduces another issue known as environmental gentrification.  With environmental gentrification low-income individuals are essentially deprived of healthy neighborhoods filled with parks and green land.  The moment a low income neighborhood begins to redevelop our capitalist system causes property values to increase and the area becomes more desirable and displaces the long term low income residents.  This repetitive cycle creates the idea that sustainable environments are only meant for those who can afford it.  Green land and toxic free residential areas are not meant for low income people.

Low income people are victims to the structural corporate system which relies heavily on private development and a decrease in government investment.  Environmental injustice shows that the city’s corporate mindset leaves low income people to fight an ‘unwinnable’ battle against the structural system even on things that seem like basic necessities like strong infrastructure and clean air.

 

Additional Resources:

Checker M. (2011) Wiped Out by the “Greenwave”:
Environmental Gentrification and the Paradoxical Politics of Urban Sustainability City & Society, Vol. 23, Issue 2, pp. 210–229

Klein N (2007) DISASTER CAPITALISM The new economy of catastrophe

Smith N. (2006) There’s No Such Thing As a Natural Disaster

New York is a diverse place with people from all around the world and from all walks of life.  Some people consider it an example of the immigrant salad bowl theory or they may even dare to say it exemplifies a melting pot.  They look at New York as a place that welcomes people who are different.  Perhaps this idea can even be perceivably true by glancing through New York City’s “center”- Times Square.  However, what is seen is just a perception, it is not reality.

Times Square has been the focus of redevelopment in multiple occasions.  A lot of time and effort has been invested and there has been a strong insistence on the redevelopment of this one portion of the city.  Why? The reason behind this, in my opinion, is that New York City wants to have a good image.  When tourists say they want to come visit New York City very often they are not talking about Queens or the Bronx but rather New York City, even more specifically Times Square.  Therefore, by making Times Square an appealing place you create an image and a good appearance for New York City.   For example, in 2010 with the construction of the glassy 40 story tower Times Square’s luxurious appearance was even more heightened.  The redevelopment as described by Charles V. Bagli in his article “After 30 Years, Times Square Rebirth Is Complete, was looked as a triumph against all odds and an example of success through perseverance.  A success that finally led to the creation of the great glamourous Times Square people think of today.  Thus, in the words of Jimmy Glenn,” Everybody loves Times Square now”.  By creating this great reputation for Times Square, the entire New York City is considered great by association and therefore, is held higher in a global scale.

Why does everyone love Times Square, now? Is it because of the change of demographic or “moral value” of the area.  Although Times Square seems to be full of diverse people it is not essentially built to accommodate all people or rather the cultural values of all people.  Essentially it’s history exemplifies the clash of cultural values and the inability for different cultural values to be embraced and to manifest themselves jointly.

In New York City not everyone’s cultural values are encouraged.  The cultural values that are supported are those that produce capital or can be commoditized or the cultural values that are exercised by people with capital.  This dynamic, further emphasizing the constant battle between who’s opinion is valued. Who is considered desirable in a community? The answer, supported heavily by the capitalist system which this city is based on, is: those who can afford it.

This system allows for those who can afford a good education to get a good education.  It allows for those who can afford to live in a greener or safer community to move to a greener or safe community.  It allows for those who have always afforded to be at the top to stay at the top while others are given this false hope in upward mobility to hold on to.  This system has allowed for this great disparity between classes to occur thus pushing groups of people farther and farther apart.  Therefore, this diverse city has become a city of segregation and dis-unification.

However, although this is a result of the capitalist ideals I don’t think that was the intention.  I think there could be a city in which we still have capitalist ideals that promote incentive but that does not have such great gaps in education, income, and social value.  However, I think the only way these gaps can be closed is if people start to diversify and not minimize each others cultural values but allow these cultural values to live in harmony.  This will allow the destruction of false perceptions that people have of one another and for the unmasking of a politicized environment where people build a fancy building to hide the root of the problems and to leave them unaddressed.  By allowing the true unification of the city we will stop living in a city that is living in a façade of beauty, luxury, and diversity under which lies segregation, inequality, and disservice.

 

Additional Works Cited:

Bagli C (2010) After 30 Years, Times Squares Rebirth is Complete. After 30 Years, a Rebirth Is Complete pA17