From The Peopling of New York City
NP #1
With the influx of a vast number of immigrants, the longtime residents of Jackson Heights have had to grapple with the emerging communities within their neighborhood. This has culminated in a struggle over both public and private space as native residents attempt to preserve the character of Jackson Heights, often against the forces working towards diversity. Understandably there have been some conflicts, but on the whole, the residents have attained a peaceful coexistence with their neighbors.
A salient example of this peaceful coexistence is the Community United Methodist Church. Aside from providing four different language masses every Sunday, the church is utilized as a meeting place by more than 90 different ethnic and civil groups (Kasinitz 169). However, it is important to note that while this one building, part of the overall public space of Jackson Heights, lends itself to diver-sity, these diverse groups rarely every interact with one another. Instead of being a gathering place to explore and understand other cultures, the church becomes a meeting place, with a specific date and time for each individual group to come together.
Unfortunately, not all the interaction in Jackson Heights can be described as a peaceful coexis-tence. Longtime residents who have sought to preserve the Jackson Heights that they grew up with have lobbied for Landmark status for many structures built by the Queensboro Corp. between 1910 and the 1940’s (Kasinitz 171). Landmark status favors well-to-do whites, as opposed to new immigrants, because of the bureaucratic steps that need to be followed to do even minor repairs on the homes, and because of the costliness of renovations. Landmark status also takes away the homeowners ability to alter the façade of the home, or to add any substantial square footage, such as a garage or a porch.
In the public sector, sidewalks are one of the most important socializing tools. Unfortunately, sidewalks are often arenas for anti-immigrant behavior. One group that was publicly harassed on city streets were Muslims and those of Middle Eastern descent after the September 11th attacks. The threat was so clear that women refused to dress in traditional dress, fearing it would prompt hatred and vio-lence on the streets. Muslims were searched at train stations for suspicious behavior, while whites were allowed to walk through without even a cursory glance (Williams 3). This negative reaction towards immigrants on public streets proves how a diversified neighborhood could still exhibit xenophobic tendencies.
Not all of the interactions between groups are indifferent or negative, in fact, residents of diver-sified neighborhoods sometimes surprise all expectations by banding together. One such surprise issue was the overcrowding of local schools. While they had a small minority of white students (not more than 10%), white parents opposed the busing of students to whiter schools in Astoria. The local schools, they claimed, fostered a sense of community that would be lost if busing became a common practice. Instead, they lobbied for another school to address the overcrowding of the current schools (Kasinitz 169). This is surprising considering the usual fear that white parents have about sending their children to schools with a non-white majority.
While one could describe the struggle between whites and non-whites in Jackson Heights over space, both public and private, as a peaceful coexistence, there is specific evidence that this coexis-tence is marred with aberrations. Neighborhood groups lobby to place limitations on private space, specifically through landmarking properties, while anti-immigrant sentiments ostracize individuals on the public streets. White parents, surprisingly, did not want to bus their children to Astoria (where there was a greater number of white children). Instead, they lobbied for more local schools to be built, so their children could appreciate the diversity of their neighborhood. These examples prove that while there was some peaceful coexistence, there were also instances of both positive and negative reactions to immigrants infiltrating the public and private spaces of what was once a predominantly white neigh-borhood.
Walking Tour
From the readings and my research, I developed an impression of Jackson Heights as a multiethnic Forest Hills Gardens. What I found on our walking tour was a much less idyllic atmosphere. From the housing stock and street life to the commercial activity, the readings did not prepare me for what I saw on our walking tour.
I felt that the Cityscape article was very misleading concerning the housing stock of Jackson Heights. The pictures painted a scene of nicely manicured lawns and gardens, interesting brickwork and facades, and an overall sense of unity. This immediately connected to previous research I had done on Forest Hills Gardens, particularly the adherence to a grand scheme. I saw some of this along 82nd Street, with the English Tudor style facades, but what stuck out were the non-conforming buildings with flat roofs and no architectural details whatsoever. While some apartment buildings, notably the Towers, were attractive from the outside, many were plain brick boxes with little or no architectural detail.
The landmarking debate also was very different in my head than what was actually going on. From the walking tour I did not see any single or two family homes, which I believed would be the most affected by being granted landmark status. Instead of preserving the original architectural integrity of the buildings, the quest of landmarkers strives for matching awnings on the commercial storefronts. Instead of a valiant effort to preserve the interesting architectural achievement, this seems to be a petty attempt to discriminate against immigrant businesses. As Kasinitz states, “the politics of historic preservation, at times, have mixed the laudable goal of preserving Jackson Heights’ architectural heritage with an undercurrent of intolerance and ethnocentrism” (171).
While I knew that the homes were centered more around a central garden than on the street front, I was surprised to see signs discouraging street life. I’ve always considered it a normal part of a neighborhood to see people sitting out on the stoops of apartment buildings and chatting with neighbors, but there were numerous signs forbidding congregation in front of the building. Perhaps, because it is winter, there were just less people out and about, but overall I was surprised at the lack of street life.
From the articles I had the impression that the commercial districts were very distinct, and only catered to those of their ethnicity. While some of this was true (for example, along Roosevelt Avenue and 76th Street there were free Spanish language newspapers), there was a surprising amount of diversity within the different commercial centers (at the Jackson Diner a group of Asian diners filled their plates), which I did not expect after reading the Jones-Correa article. I was also surprised at the relative uniformity of the wares offered. Along Roosevelt Avenue, the abundance of cell phone stores, travel agencies (especially the same travel agency, Delgado Travel, twice within three blocks), 99 Cents stores, and restaurants surprised me. From the readings I expected to see specific ethnically based offerings, instead of the electronic stores and corner bodegas common to other areas of Queens. However, along 74th Street, my impressions from the reading and the walking tour coincided. Not only was it the most populated commercial district that we visited, something that I expected of the entire commercial landscape of Jackson Heights, it featured almost exclusively Indian specialty items, from the exotic fruits at Patel Brothers, to the ornate gold jewelry and clothing stores, as the Cityscape article mentioned (96).
Overall, my impressions from the reading were contradictory to what I actually saw on the walking tour. By trying to compare Jackson Heights to something I already had learned in the academic sphere I lacked a true grasp of the diversity that is Jackson Heights.
Mechanisms of development:
If you were searching for a house in JH, here is what a Realtor would tell you.
There are still ethnic groups moving into JH, but how JH is becoming more gentrified, and this is because the selling of diversity
Mele- bohemia- politics- sell teh culture not the politics/economics --> diversity masks eco/pol
Diversity for the Realtor is about culture nothing else.
There is a politics and an economics of diversity that is not taken into account by the real estate people. The treat that gentrification poses to the neighborhood.
racial gerrymandering
