Yesterday, sfgate.com released a story about Robert Lemon, a student at UC Berkeley who is doing a survey-based examination of Oakland neighborhoods; How ethnic groups change Oakland neighborhoods .
The take-home message, at least presented from this article, is that urban planners and developers need to begin considering neighborhoods in a much more flexible light: one overarching plan may not suit a diverse population’s needs, especially since it is almost so obvious as to be laughable to be reminded that ethnic groups tend to self-segregate. A ‘diverse population’ is diverse in the sense that it has a collection of communities which are not similar, that is, a number of fairly homogenous communities which, taken as a whole rather than individual parts, seem heterogeneous.
This ethnic preference for different neighborhood spaces can also be seen through a social capital lens. It could be suggested that a culture bearing a consistent cross-generational preference for certain kinds of space (ie broad, unpopulated fields or shoulder-to-shoulder urban masses) can help members of that group build social capital amongst themselves. Similarly, if space-based preferences regularly align with other principles, be it cultural or ethical or whatever, then as people migrate into neighborhoods to their liking, they are more likely to find a community in which they are easily able to network and increase their social capital gains.
The other side of this coin is that as neighborhoods become more and more welcoming to a specific group, it will then become less and less welcoming to at least some others. This looks to me as a reinforcement of existing bonding capital: as neighborhoods become more to one’s liking, the less one needs to look out of the neighborhood for social or commercial capital. Whether this is a positive or a negative thing is up for grabs: I would imagine that it would be beneficial for individuals seeking to improve their own neighborhood, but as the bonding capital grew, it could challenge some kinds of inclusive cross-neighborhood coalition building, especially if there are irreconcilable differences between two cultural groups – these differences would not pose a problem if the groups were mixed evenly among the population, maybe, but as they gain significant in-group network density, their ability to self-identify and self-advocate could go up, to the chagrin of other, disagreeable, networks.
Social capital is a two-sided coin: self-advocacy and in-group identification can benefit individuals and communities, but it can also spur on the growth of the kind of dangerous positive liberty Berlin warns us about.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
Shrinking Cities
Worth Reading: Youngstown, Ohio, Tries To 'Shrink' Smartly - It links to a Wall Street Journal story that only members can access, but this synopsis is enough for my purposes.
The example that Youngstown, OH is setting is one that many Upstate NY cities ought to take note of. Rather than railing against the slow decay of certain neighborhoods, the administration has decided to embrace its newer, smaller size. To that end, thousands of demolitions are being planned, which will hopefully be followed by the creation of large amounts of public green space. This type of bold urban movement is usually quickly bound and killed by civic red tape: but it may be that Youngstown is small enough already that state and federal bodies will restrain themselves from stifling a non-status quo experiment.
The idea is simple, but radical: a city's former tax base was able to support significantly larger infrastructure and public works programs than its current, smaller, population is able to bear. Generally, municipalities will try to continue doing the same maintenance and repair they always have - a bitter pill for Public Works administrators, set to the task of keeping afloat roads and bridges with a constantly shrinking budget. To make matters worse, it has been largely accepted that what brings folks the most pride in their neighborhood is exactly the sort of thing that suffers as post-manufacturing cities shrink - well-paved roads, clean streets, and quick and reasonable enforcement of local housing code.
As the roads and structure appearance begins to suffer, perceptions of neighborhoods begin to decline - as one feels less and less pleased with one's place of residence, the less inclined one is to participate in civic events. It is a downward spiral: as things get worse, the propensity to improve them decreases - after all, the farther down the drain things get, the more effort it is going to take to get them even back to zero.
In this way, it is interesting to see how the flight of actual capital (businesses, jobs, local tax base) contributes directly to the loss of social capital. I am still mulling over what look to be direct relationships between different types of local capital - perhaps a future post will feature them more prominently.
This intentional shrinking city phenomenon that is occurring in Youngstown seems, in the long term, to be a possible model for many cities in the Rust Belt. I have several concerns, however:
- The neighborhoods which are to be "gutted," it seems almost obvious, will be the poorest neighborhoods in Youngstown. These are the places where the least tax money is drawn from, these are the places where the smallest amount of political capital will be lost upon destruction. What will happen to the residents of these areas? Assuming that most of them are renters (as are folks in similar neighborhoods in Binghamton), they will not even benefit if Youngstown gains possession of the properties by eminent domain. Where shall they go?
- What type of example is being set here? I may be wrong, but it looks as though this is a patently undemocratic movement. Where did this originate from? Is this a last-ditch effort by an executive official? Presumably, if the voters are dissatisfied with these endeavors, they will vote out the Mayor and his administration, but, as mentioned above, if these people have already been displaced, they probably lack much political capital to begin with - otherwise, why would they have stayed in the worst neighborhoods in town?
These may be unfounded concerns, I recognize this - and I DO commend Youngstown for taking on controversial solutions to national problems. I would very much like to see this work out for the best, but I also do not wish to see a patently anti-poor, undemocratic movement be the answer to our cities' problems.
The example that Youngstown, OH is setting is one that many Upstate NY cities ought to take note of. Rather than railing against the slow decay of certain neighborhoods, the administration has decided to embrace its newer, smaller size. To that end, thousands of demolitions are being planned, which will hopefully be followed by the creation of large amounts of public green space. This type of bold urban movement is usually quickly bound and killed by civic red tape: but it may be that Youngstown is small enough already that state and federal bodies will restrain themselves from stifling a non-status quo experiment.
The idea is simple, but radical: a city's former tax base was able to support significantly larger infrastructure and public works programs than its current, smaller, population is able to bear. Generally, municipalities will try to continue doing the same maintenance and repair they always have - a bitter pill for Public Works administrators, set to the task of keeping afloat roads and bridges with a constantly shrinking budget. To make matters worse, it has been largely accepted that what brings folks the most pride in their neighborhood is exactly the sort of thing that suffers as post-manufacturing cities shrink - well-paved roads, clean streets, and quick and reasonable enforcement of local housing code.
As the roads and structure appearance begins to suffer, perceptions of neighborhoods begin to decline - as one feels less and less pleased with one's place of residence, the less inclined one is to participate in civic events. It is a downward spiral: as things get worse, the propensity to improve them decreases - after all, the farther down the drain things get, the more effort it is going to take to get them even back to zero.
In this way, it is interesting to see how the flight of actual capital (businesses, jobs, local tax base) contributes directly to the loss of social capital. I am still mulling over what look to be direct relationships between different types of local capital - perhaps a future post will feature them more prominently.
This intentional shrinking city phenomenon that is occurring in Youngstown seems, in the long term, to be a possible model for many cities in the Rust Belt. I have several concerns, however:
- The neighborhoods which are to be "gutted," it seems almost obvious, will be the poorest neighborhoods in Youngstown. These are the places where the least tax money is drawn from, these are the places where the smallest amount of political capital will be lost upon destruction. What will happen to the residents of these areas? Assuming that most of them are renters (as are folks in similar neighborhoods in Binghamton), they will not even benefit if Youngstown gains possession of the properties by eminent domain. Where shall they go?
- What type of example is being set here? I may be wrong, but it looks as though this is a patently undemocratic movement. Where did this originate from? Is this a last-ditch effort by an executive official? Presumably, if the voters are dissatisfied with these endeavors, they will vote out the Mayor and his administration, but, as mentioned above, if these people have already been displaced, they probably lack much political capital to begin with - otherwise, why would they have stayed in the worst neighborhoods in town?
These may be unfounded concerns, I recognize this - and I DO commend Youngstown for taking on controversial solutions to national problems. I would very much like to see this work out for the best, but I also do not wish to see a patently anti-poor, undemocratic movement be the answer to our cities' problems.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Social Capital and Personal Achievement
I have, for better or worse, decided to participate in a triathlon this summer. Nothing too serious, no Ironman or anything, but it will still be the most ambitious athletic pursuit I've ever gone after, so that's something. Two of my friends have also thrown their hats into the ring, which brought to mind a quotation from a web site I frequent while preparing for rugby season:
"Your results and expectations are directly related to those people with whom you spend your time. If you're trying to get strong, then get around strong people. Get around those people who see you as you'll be, not as you are." (Dave Tate, Powerlifting Coach)
I believe that this is absolutely true. We are social creatures. This is not up for debate, not really. Even if, due to psychological or hormonal reasons, you're uncomfortable around others, those others will impact your life. We live our lives in an ocean of social interaction - this is only avoidable by massive effort. To succeed, to pursue and to overcome, is dependent upon those people in your network. Your ability to activate and engage with your social capital is going to directly affect your ability to reach your goals.
This is not an easy fact to swallow. Do you want to run a marathon? You're going to have a much easier time of it if your close friends are also interested in distance running. That's not to say that if you really want to go the 26.2, you need to surround yourself with folks who can run a sub-6 mile - rather, you need to have people in your life who are supportive in both word and deed. Even if they only stand at your 12-mile point with a bottle of water and a couple pouches of energy goo, that support will improve your chances of success.
Not to allow folks to externalize their responsibilities, but hey - if you want to improve your eating habits? Stop having lunch with the crew who thinks a salad comes in a deep-fried tortilla shell. You don't have to get rid of your friends, just reconsider who can help you where.
Social capital is an excellent tool, especially when you're talking about densely nested networks with many different individuals in different industries. However, to find oneself deeply involved in a social network is also to accept and behave according to that network's norms and codes. Sometimes that means eating with only one hand. Sometimes that means eating a dozen buffalo wings four times a week. But we must keep in mind that our social capital, while oft beneficial, can carry with it a certain behavioral inertia that can be hard to overcome. Sometimes, the only way to change your own behavior in order to pursue a goal is to take time to free yourself from the habits your social capital can pressure upon you.
Dave Tate is right, although I don't know that you need to totally surround yourself with those who share your every goal, just try to remind yourself who your friends are. The best drinking buddies don't always make the best cycling partners. Sometimes they do - but not always. In a very significant way, if you want to pursue and fulfill your own greatest potential, it is necessary to be aware of who you surround yourself with.
"Your results and expectations are directly related to those people with whom you spend your time. If you're trying to get strong, then get around strong people. Get around those people who see you as you'll be, not as you are." (Dave Tate, Powerlifting Coach)
I believe that this is absolutely true. We are social creatures. This is not up for debate, not really. Even if, due to psychological or hormonal reasons, you're uncomfortable around others, those others will impact your life. We live our lives in an ocean of social interaction - this is only avoidable by massive effort. To succeed, to pursue and to overcome, is dependent upon those people in your network. Your ability to activate and engage with your social capital is going to directly affect your ability to reach your goals.
This is not an easy fact to swallow. Do you want to run a marathon? You're going to have a much easier time of it if your close friends are also interested in distance running. That's not to say that if you really want to go the 26.2, you need to surround yourself with folks who can run a sub-6 mile - rather, you need to have people in your life who are supportive in both word and deed. Even if they only stand at your 12-mile point with a bottle of water and a couple pouches of energy goo, that support will improve your chances of success.
Not to allow folks to externalize their responsibilities, but hey - if you want to improve your eating habits? Stop having lunch with the crew who thinks a salad comes in a deep-fried tortilla shell. You don't have to get rid of your friends, just reconsider who can help you where.
Social capital is an excellent tool, especially when you're talking about densely nested networks with many different individuals in different industries. However, to find oneself deeply involved in a social network is also to accept and behave according to that network's norms and codes. Sometimes that means eating with only one hand. Sometimes that means eating a dozen buffalo wings four times a week. But we must keep in mind that our social capital, while oft beneficial, can carry with it a certain behavioral inertia that can be hard to overcome. Sometimes, the only way to change your own behavior in order to pursue a goal is to take time to free yourself from the habits your social capital can pressure upon you.
Dave Tate is right, although I don't know that you need to totally surround yourself with those who share your every goal, just try to remind yourself who your friends are. The best drinking buddies don't always make the best cycling partners. Sometimes they do - but not always. In a very significant way, if you want to pursue and fulfill your own greatest potential, it is necessary to be aware of who you surround yourself with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
