Initially I expected PlanNYC’s “official statement” to be long multiple page PDF. Instead, I was disappointed by the brevity of the statement and it’s lack of substantive scientific data. The 2020 and 2050 projections listed, fail to place the problem of climate change in the present. The year 2050 is the year people reference when predicting that flying cars will be the norm. Lastly, despite being an official statement of an NYC organization, there is no mention of any agenda/policy the city has adopted with regards to climate change.

I absolutely LOVED Stephen Graham’s “Cities Under Siege: Katrina and the Politics of Metropolitan America”, primarily because I agree with the political tone of the piece. Secondly, Graham does an excellent job of laying out the political errors of the Bush administration prior to and in the aftermath of Katrina.

“Taking a Call for Climate Change to the Streets” by Lisa Foderaro lacks any real substance. The writer emphasizes the the size of the march via analogies and estimates made by a mathematician but she fails to present any scientific data or the demands of the marchers’.

It definitely warms my heart knowing that so many people from all over the world would make the effort to be present in such event. Yes, they are expressing their opinion about the way politicians have dealt with the global warming issue, however, no one can guarantee any sort of result after protesting. But, it definitely did leave a mark on many people’s lives and they were also very successful at getting their message out because the media, such as The New York Times, wrote and article about them.

Although actions by the governments have been taken, there’s a lot more we, the citizens, can do about this issue. I simply do wonder what else has to happen—in terms of geological disasters—so that people become conscientious enough about their actions and change so many destructive habits they have. For instance, reducing the amount of water used while taking a shower, and taking a shower instead of a bath; while brushing their teeth turning the water off helps, people continue to do otherwise, however. And the list goes on…

Question: What small action do we do at home to help the planet ourselves?

I found this week’s readings to be particularly interesting and especially salient, as climate change becomes the object of the largest scientific consensus since the theory of evolution. And, it is ubiquitous – the entirety of the planet is threatened by climate change; it transcends class, race, and border. As a participant in the People’s Climate March, it was heartwarming to read about the movement that I felt very lucky to be a part of. I really think such collective action in one of the largest cities in the world (and in other cities across the globe) goes to show that citizens care about climate change, and that it cannot be ignored in favor of selectively beneficial politics, ie, our oil obsession. I was shocked to read about the depth of Bush’s failure at handling Katrina. It is downright shameful that money was diverted from basic city maintenance in order to fund largely fossil fuel motivated “wars on terror,” to supposedly protect highly vulnerable urban areas. Meanwhile, natural disasters are far more likely and more damaging than acts of terror. The article by Graham is a must-read for people studying Katrina, and even politics more generally. It sheds invaluable light on what was really going on behind the scenes pre and post Katrina.

Since last class’ discussion, I couldn’t get the thought of rhetoric out of my head throughout these readings. In all but the first of our readings, I’d say that all of them employ some sort of rhetorical trickery—whether it be the sort of ad hominem stuff going on in the article of Bush’s policies post-Katrina (which I still agree with, all-in-all, but attacking Bush for being Bush was played out and useless as a strategy of talking about the damage done long before he was out of office), or the incendiary methods of extreme pathos throughout Land of Opportunity. Especially in LoO, there is no attempt made to veil their rhetorical strategy: the man talking about gentrification in Brooklyn uses some classic power-dynamic strategies to place himself in a position of authority; the urban planners in Katrina specifically say they’re to stop using terms like “footprint” or what-have-you in favor of “solidifying communities;” and Acorn was just as drowned in rhetoric. I come away from all of this really only being able to say for sure that climate change is happening, from scientific evidence that shows it, but once politicians and group-interest gets involved, the nuances of data are lost. So, is there a way to “depoliticize” issues like climate change, to strip away rhetorical terminology and present facts and studies that will still have people taking action with passion?

Upon reading the statistics presented in PlaNYC, I’m really interested to see what the proposed fixes are to eradicate the threat of climate change. Unfortunately, people would need to radically change themselves and their actions – going above and beyond just participating in a march. A digression: it reminds me of the people who hop on board of the next bandwagon without taking the time to fully understand it. These same individuals who rail against global warming are later going to go home to the lights they forgot to turn off and the plastic in most things we all earn – this same plastic with a carbon footprint of about 6 kg CO2 per kg of plastic. Global warming is a huge problem; I’m not denying it. However, there is much confusion over the best ways to go about fixing it. It’s frustrating that PlaNYC doesn’t even touch upon what is now possibly the best bet for alleviating the problems of climate change: geoengineering.

In “Brooklyn Tenants Battle Gentrification on Many Fronts,” Ian Marsh discusses tenant protests of gentrification in their neighborhoods. Though gentrification may improve the outer appearance of an area, it often increases the market pressures and people who can no longer keep up with the finances of living in a gentrified area are forced to move elsewhere. As the article puts it, “predatory landlords” capitalize off of the increased value of property in gentrifying areas. This allows them to increase the amount they collect for rent. However, groups like the Urban Homesteading Assistance Board, the Crown Heights Tenant Union, and the Pratt Area Community Council are working to unify citizens against the phenomenon of gentrification. I believe that though the issue of gentrification is often brought up, people can be swayed by the fact that gentrification brings more money to an area and can make it look improved. However, underlying issues like housing displacement are a real concern, and need to be addressed when phenomena like this are happening across the world in cities with gentrifying cities.

Question: how can we lessen the negative effects of gentrification while still bringing the improvement of infrastructure and services to an area? How can we keep old tenants while still improving public right of way?

Don’t tell me none of you were thinking it. The “Class Struggle on Avenue B” reading evoked the Wild Wild West image multiple times. I specifically liked the bit about the suburban couple moving from Houston St and comparing themselves to those who crossed the Rockies. But the implications in the imagery is powerful. The premise behind Manifest Destiny is that it was their God-given right to expand westward, that they were civilising the native populations even as they were cutting them down. To compare the phenomenon to gentrification is damning at best.

There was actually another notable comparison that was drawn: when the mayor and others called the Tompkins Square protestors communists and anarchists. More damning words, especially given the era, but definitely worth the same consideration given to the image of Manifest Destiny to define gentrification. They did, after all, label the issue one of class struggle – and that’s Marxist history.

Question: Are the two images accurate? Are they not? How would you depict the groups?

As a member of the Crown Heights group, the “Brooklyn Tenants Battle Gentrification on Many Fronts” article by Ian Marsh was a worthwhile read. The article briefly introduced the reader to those associations and organizations working against gentrification in Crown Heights like Make the Road and the Urban Homesteading Assistance Board. Beyond these introductions, I found the article to be oddly specific and its short length makes it difficult for the uninformed reader to really understand the depth of the problem. To better understand the article, I would recommend the author include a brief bio of each politician mentioned, especially his/her stance and work on gentrification.

While reading the article, I noticed the techniques, used by landlords to harass Crown Heights tenants, are similar to those used in Barnsbury, London, a primary focus of “The Birth of Gentrification” article.

Question: Has “Make the Road” published any research on housing discrimination since the publication of the article?

Walking along the streets of Brooklyn today, one can easily tell when they are entering an area that is being gentrified. All of a sudden, the stores, condition of the houses, and population begin to change. Houses no longer look dilapidated and old, local mom and pop stores are replaced by new expensive stores, and the average working class person becomes a hipster or yuppie. Many of the stores in a gentrified neighborhood really reflect the new population and a sort of “culture of gentrification.” Surprisingly enough, this was also happening when gentrification took place in the ’80s and ’90s. The Smith article talks about the urban frontier myth of gentrification and the culture created around it.

In the ’80s and ’90s a lot of fashion and home decor were centered around the wild west. Men and women began to wear bandanas and boots brandishing a style called “cowboy chic.” A lot of Tex-mex restaurants began popping up and people began to decorate their apartments with furniture made from animal hide. A lot of the products however were made with conservation in mind. This is similar to the products in gentrified neighborhoods where many of the products say “free range” or “organic.”

Question: Is it gentrification culture or simply rich culture?

The moment Roland Barthes came up in our reading, I knew I was in for a good time. I truly appreciated every paragraph of the “Building the Frontier Myth” section of the Smith reading. And later, when he says, “Whereas the myth of the frontier is an invention that rationalizes the violence of gentrification and displacement, the everyday frontier on which the myth is hung is the stark product of entrepreneurial exploitation” (22)—is sobering, and an entirely necessary way to look at the stark reality of the way gentrification is a manipulative process. The stories of tenant abuse in this new wave of gentrification—mirroring the violence predicted by Smith—presented in the City Limits article was equally sobering; I’m tempted to make my question this week something like “why are all New York landlords terrible people?” but I feel my question this week is the same as last’s: where is the solution here? How do we stop gentrification? The way Alec said his relative handled it seems like a good idea that allows both the new people coming in to come in and the old people who want to stay to stay. The suggestion of co-ops in the latter article, while possibly very idealistic, also seems good. How can we make places like Crown Heights not become Williamsburg?