It’s contradictory how Zukin says that cities are defined by change but the people who stay the longest in the city gives it character. I view character as one’s uniqueness and virtue. Thus, I find it strange how she says cities are places that are always changing yet the people that stay give it a constant character. Even so, I agree that cities are always changing. Cities are always thriving on businesses with the latest and creative ideas and technology. I also agree with Zukin that government plays an important to prevent displacement. Businesses are a key factor of New York City. Therefore, businesses need to be protected by the people of the city. If something is threatening those businesses, it is up to the people to stand up for its city and save them. Certain proposals could be helpful to businesses, but they could also prove to be harmful. Thus, as a people we need to stand up for the ones we believe will help our businesses and, thus, cities the most. In addition, if we show that our businesses are important to us, government officials will have a better idea on what matters to the people they are speaking for and act with those interests in mind.
Oldenburg had stated Jane Jacobs believed if there is no neutral ground for people to converse with friends outside work and home, then the city will be stultified. I believe that socially the city would be stultified with such an environment but it would allow one to be forced to focus on work and may work more efficiently. Even so, human interaction is needed for one’s mental health. Thus, one should have a balance of neutral, work, and home grounds. Even so, I agree with Oldenburg’s belief that there are third places and levelers where one can have interactions with people outside their work and personal lives and people from work and personal lives respectively. I also resonated with how Oldenburg said that third places have regular customers that feel like home to them and give a playful mood to their customers.
Oldenburg’s argument had plenty of heart put into the idea, but I agree more with Zukin’s. Oldenburg seemed too personal and emotional about his ideas that his views seemed too optimistic to be applied to today’s society. On the other hand, Zukin’s argument had a personal and heartfelt meaning to it but also logic that appealed to me more. Her argument was very passionate without getting emotional or a skewed idea that could apply to today and possible future situations.
