This article was intriguing in so many respects. I want to speak to a few of these issues this morning before my thoughts escape my groggy brain.
The discussion of what makes a cool city a desirable place to live was quite interesting to me. The "urban renewal" or regentrification of so many neighborhoods in cities nationwide, locally noticed especially in Milwaukee, has displaced so many residents. As people flock to the 5th Ward, Brewer's Hill (etc.) to the cool lofts and modern residences, I am baffled by the marketing ploys of the real estate developers. They come in and level the deteriorating structures that no one seems to want in an area that no one seems to want to live. The people who lived there may or may not have wanted to be there, and may or may not have wanted to leave. Where do they go? I don't assume that too many of the displaced are moving into the penthouse condos in the newly erected structures.
Furthermore, what makes these "new" places cool? The services provided by the city don't necessarily change. The schools stay the same. Maybe it's the addition of a Starbucks. I just don't "get it." I've visited some of these residences and some just don't seem that "cool", let alone warrant the steep price tags (no offense to people living in a regentrified neighborhood intended).
I loved the analysis of the sunglass-wearing Governor Granholm's attempt to decrease the flight from Michigan, or more accurately, the attempt to repopulate the burnt-out neighborhoods that remain south of 8 Mile Road. Just throw on the Raybans, pack up the Rover, and come on back to Motown. Such attempts to repopulate areas that are "less than desirable" fail to address the actual problems in Detroit: a double-digit unemployment rate and an embarrassingly high violent crime rate. To ignore the actual issues further exploits the already marginalized group of citizens. Where will they go? Will they be able to throw on a pair of Raybans and enjoy a jazz show or a cup at Caribou? I'm hopeful, but I think not.
My Blog List
-
-
Y'all are the best!14 years ago
-
-
Questions for Harry and Heather and You14 years ago
-
Final Project15 years ago
-
-
-
3 comments:
Hi Josh,
Yes, I would think that what makes a neighborhood cool is the addition of a Starbucks. I do think that is what becomes the issue: to what degree is the cool factor appropriated in such a way that the new cool becomes fake. Inauthentic coolness. Socially engineered coolness. Coolness for corporate profit. Now, I begrudge no one wanting to live in a cool neighborhood. I think my neighborhood is kind of cool, though it is not up there at all with the 3rd ward in Milwaukee, at least not on the offical what-is-cool-list. The question comes down to, what is cool? See you in class. T.
Interesting mediation on the process of gentrification, and the rhetoric that often accompanies it.
I'm no expert on Milwaukee, but I lived in Chicago long enough to see this process play out several times: Ethnic neighborhood with low rent starts to attract artists and musicians. Artists and musicians are cool, so hip (white) non-artists move in. Neighborhood generates buzz. Buzz generates independent coffee shops, record stores, clothing boutiques, and higher rents. Higher rents push out the ethnic folks first, the independent shops second. Starbucks comes and plants its flag, and the process is complete. The artists-musicians, disgusted at the commercialism they helped spawn, and unable to afford the new rents, look for the next ethnic neighborhood to colonize.
As evidence, witness Wicker Park, Pilsen, Lincoln Square, Logan Square, etc.
I might add: Atwood and Willy Streets here in Madison.
This makes me think of "cool" tourist destinations, which are basically places as yet not overrun with tourists. As soon as enough people know about it and go -- as soon as it's not a secret anymore -- it ceases to be cool.
Cool as the desperate need to be unique.
Post a Comment