Quoth the preeminent philosopher Homer J. Simpson: "...I agree with you in theory. In theory communism works. In theory..."
Bickford's essay is dense, sweeping, provocative, radical, and at many times seemingly anachronistic. I found myself more than once referring back to the first page to verify the actual date of publication. Her philosophy, while profound, seems horribly out of date. Had this essay been written in the late 60's, I perhaps could appreciate her thesis better.
The central crux of her argument seems to be that the proliferation of suburbia and the construction of "gates" have radically diminished diversity and distorted middle and upper classes' views of community and citizenship. One could surmise that as these suburban "gates" increase - and no doubt they have in the last 15 years - then race relations should equally decay. Certainly we haven't achieved ideal racial (ethic and social) harmony, but clearly we have made advances evident even in our relatively brief lives. Although her sources are meticulously footnoted, some of the quotes utterly astound me - "whites continue to have a very low tolerance for the residential presence of African Americans". Perhaps its generational, perhaps its mine own values, but I find that statement extremely difficult to digest. And curiously I type this just as the news wire reports Iowa voters - not exactly the poster of ethnic diversity, with no disrespect to our good friends in the Hawkeye state - overwhelmingly supported Obama.
Bickford's concept of the "gate" is an interesting one, however, and certainly warrants examination of ourselves both as citizens and as curators of the built environment. While some of her examples are seemingly absurd to me - the mall security illustration for example: I can accept her argument that black and latino teenagers may feel ill at ease, but "elderly women of all races"? - her arguments about the nature of truly public space strikes a chord. Being a member of the so-called "super majority", that is a caucasion, middle-class male, I find it difficult to experience what radically different citizen may experience. Never have I felt insecure about an increased police presence patrolling my nieghborhood or swiping my ID card as I enter my office building, but I can perhaps imagine these as detriments in some cases.
The notion of gentrification is a curious paradox. I accept her argument that the school districts often times are one of the clearest lines of demarcation and support this notion of "gates". Yet the primary method to better a school district is through increased revenue through ... property taxes. What then is Bickford's solution to increasing funds if not through redevelopment? Again, I accept her argument that gentrification is often times destructive to a city's character, but she leaves me without a solution.
Lastly I'd like to touch on her intentional double entendre of the idea of "zoning out". Her thesis implies - and cetainly Jane Jacobs' - that the concept of zoning out, that is restricting or "engineering" an idealized pattern for the built environment is not so much of a good thing. She derides PUDS, CIDS, CC&R's and perhaps a couple other nefarious initials, rather categorically. I agree with her in part - some are silly, somewhat exclusionary, and frustrating - but I don't support the notion that these are entirely evil. The immediate image of the planned community of Seaside, Florida comes to mind. While I have never visited, I consider this from my studies to be a hallmark of idealized design. I'm curious how far Bickford is willing to accept the disolution of the concept of zoning. Would she be ok with a smattering of strip clubs or perhaps a rendering plant next to her residence? Obviously I exaggerate for the sake of hyperbole, but there is a place for zoning and restrictions.
To summarize, I think Susan Bickford makes some compelling arguments that in the end are just that - arguments without the concern for a solution, and arguments which may be 50 years out of time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I agree with you about this article being somewhat dated. The reading paints a grime picture of the recent time. It fails to provide any real historical precedents or examples of the ideal society that she so strives to reach. The essay seemed to hint at the Civil Rights Movement, but failed to acknowledge how far society has come in the last 50 to 100 years. I would not argue, however, that things are perfect. Greater strides still have to be made.
"I'm curious how far Bickford is willing to accept the disolution of the concept of zoning. Would she be ok with a smattering of strip clubs or perhaps a rendering plant next to her residence? Obviously I exaggerate for the sake of hyperbole, but there is a place for zoning and restrictions."
Excellent point!
I agree with nick that great strides still have to be made but I it seems she is only able to ask the questions to allow people to consider the situation at hand. As she brings up, history has only further separated classes.
First, I LOVE that you have a boxer too!
Second, I as well was disgusted (and think I choked out loud) at the comment about "elderly women of all races". After having lived in the South and Indiana (capital of the KKK), I am no stranger to racism, but I certainly don't see it in urban areas. Small towns in the middle of nowhere, sure. But I like to believe that our generation can see past color. Unfortunately, I think socio-economic status now draws lines between neighbors. I really don't have an answer to that. I'll be the first to admit, in a transitional neighborhood like my own, I am anxious to be rid of the drug dealers and petty theft that still occurs. It has nothing to do with diversity, in fact, I live in the neighborhood BECAUSE of the amount of diversity. But crime and drugs are not things I am willing to deal with.
Not long ago (2002-06), I lived in Durham, NC, one of the most racially separated cities I've ever been in. The neighborhoods were pretty much either all black or all white, and those that were somewhat mixed were pretty tough to sell a house in. When I moved away, it took me nearly a year to sell my house, with over 60 showings. The comments of the potential buyers almost uniformly loved the house and the garden, but there was some vague concern over the "neighborhood." I can only imagine that was because my next-door neighbor on the north was white, my next-door neighbor on the south was black, and the house across the street was home to a multi-generational Latino family of questionable immigration status. The fact of the matter is that there wasn't a single police call in this neighborhood in the entire three years I lived there... but it didn't look like a neighborhood people expected, and that made them uneasy.
This happened on a much larger scale in the town I grew up in in Michigan. After World War II, there was a big northward migration of African Americans to work in the industrial centers of the North. And as fast as the working-class blacks moved into my home town of Muskegon Heights, the working-class whites left for Norton Shores or North Muskegon or Fruitport. The term "white flight" is the description of this phenomenon, and suburbs and gated communities are one result.
As a side note, the question of Barack Obama is an interesting one. The black political theorist (and social conservative) Shelby Steele divides black public figures into a couple of groups. One is what he calls "bargainers," and the other is "challengers." To quote Steele, bargainers such as Obama and Oprah Winfrey "strike a bargain with white America in which they say, I will not rub America's ugly history of racism in your face if you will not hold my race against me." That makes us white folks grateful and comfortable, and we let them in the door. But not every person of color is willing to make that bargain, depending on their own circumstances and history. So I don't think that voting for Obama, as happy as that makes me, has very much to do with white "low tolerance for the residential presence of African Americans," which is pretty much still the case.
Herb,
Maybe we are getting off topic, and probably I'm opening the proverbial can of worms but I may argue that your two examples may be generational to some extent. I don't know your age, but judging from your dashing photo on your blog I estimate you to not be a day over 40....moving on. I don't dispute the white-flight phenonmenon, but do you honestly think that still occurs today? Maybe I'm insulated in my little world here in middle America, but I would challenge the notion that as blacks and latinos climb the economic ladder (which I hope we can agree as a whole they are) and as they have the ability to move into better (apologies to Bickford - "better" from my point of view) neighborhoods, is the current philosophy of the established residences still "there goes the neighborhood?". Maybe to some extent, and maybe in the parts of the country that is still fighting the Civil War, but I honestly believe that my generation doesn't hold the same prejudices that my parents' might. It would be curious to see in 20 years as my generation becomes the "power brokers", where we are at.
Post a Comment