Elissa Olivera 2/6/12

In response to Liz’s #3 question, I definitely believe there is prejudice in calling Five Points the “worst neighborhood.” Five Towns is described as a dirty slum that is the shame of America containing the lowest of all human beings. I remember reading in one paragraph that three fights broke out within only a matter of 15 minutes. However, even in the book itself it says that a lot of the talk about Five Towns illustrated the “ghetto” to be far worse than what it was. Of course there were horrible living conditions, fighting, alcohol and many other actions and aspects that are commonly associated with slums, however there were also some revolutionary things occurring in this town that seemed atrocious to the onlookers, but nowadays seems right: the intermixing of blacks and whites on the streets. It is written and illustrated through one picture that the people who went “slumming” were disgusted at how blacks and whites were so openly intertwined in the streets with one another. Now I am not saying Five Towns was a desirable place to live, however I do think that people who only look at the surface of things and are quick to judge, tend to over exaggerate circumstances. The very fact that the wealthy people took “tours” around this poor neighborhood as if they were viewing a circus, already signifies that they believe themselves to be better than these “low-lives.” Calling the unfortunate people in this town a disgrace to all things human is extremely harsh on my opinion: they are people, no matter what circumstances they are in. I also found it interesting when Jane Jacobs mentioned that city planners do not plan a city according to how it will function, but rather on how it looks to the eye. I found it incredibly intriguing when she mentioned that the residents of an apartment building were complaining about a lawn/plot near their building. “It doesn’t serve a purpose.” This was the mindset of most of the residents and I thought it was interesting because one would think that the addition of a fairly decent sized lot in the projects might be utilized for children’s sports like baseball or tag or catch. However these residents felt the lot was useless and were angry about its presence. They mentioned that they would much rather have a place to buy coffee or other daily items. My question is even though they don’t have a Starbucks or 7/11, why don’t they make the most of that lot? I don’t understand why there is anger toward a lot that could be potentially used for a garden or a play area? I understand and fully agree with the fact that there should be built other, more useful stores and shops as opposed to an empty lot with no purpose, but why the anger? Is it because that lot is a constant reminder of what they don’t have? that the only thing they do have is an empty, purposeless lot? Maybe, but I’m not quite sure.