Wow, what a long and convoluted way to go to say that any form of segregation is bad.
I think Bickford may be missing the point of the purpose of the CIDs, PUDs, (C.H.U.D.s even), and closed neighborhoods. They are congregations of individuals with similar perspectives. Some of these communities may have the purpose of segregating along, racial, religious or other lines, but the vast majority of the communities do not. If you have worked hard enough to earn a place in the community and you like the surroundings and people you will be living with, these planned communities are more than willing to take your money. They do not care if you’re white, black, yellow, purple even, so long as you are willing to conform with the consensus of the community you will become a part of. The same goes for any neighborhood and neighborhood realtor.
Typically when someone returns home, after being in “public” for a period, they are looking for a place to relax. In public, you have to be conscious of so many things, like who is around you, your actions in relation to them, what you say around them, etc… because they may not share the same perspective as you and may take offense. And, if they do take offense, they may opt for some form of censure, whether physical, social or legal. But, when you return to your home community, you are able to casually interact with your neighbors with little fear of reprisal, so long as you comfortably remain within the acceptable means of conduct professed by the community and by extension you.
When McKenzie argues that a gated community is undemocratic in how it can enforce any restrictions that it may have, I think he misses the point that you exercise the democratic right to vote to live or not live within that community. If enough home buyers vote not to live within or leave an overly restrictive community, it’s not going to be a community for long. But, if you are willing to abide by those restrictions and are comfortable with the overall community view and perspective, and can afford it, why should you have to go somewhere else.
Let’s face it, the biggest gate to any community is money, what can you afford and how hard are you willing to work to get there.
One final note, concerning Bickford’s suggestion of “democratically” forcing integration of communities and view points. How do you legislate morality? Look how well it worked during the liquor prohibition, or more recently during the burgeoning anti-drug campaign (has it really been over 25 years). If what you are fighting is rooted deep enough, it’s not going to go away, it is just going to be kept hush and on the sly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think you raise an interesting point when you stated that everyone has to live in fear when in public that they may offend them or they might not share the same perspective. That is one of the downfalls I see of today's society. It is such a shame that we are all afraid to share our thoughts and opinions in fear that we may be sued retaliated against in another manner. What has happened to working out our differences? We don't have to like each other's opinions but as humans in one society we should be able to respect one another and their right to have opinions.
I do agree that the biggest gate to any community is money, and I partially agree with the fact that you can get there if you work hard. For the most part yes, however unfortunately that is not the case a 100% of the time and won't be during our lifetime I fear. Like you stated, we can't force or legislate morality. It will have to come on its own and I believe it is still a long way from happening in our society.
The question of voting with your dollars is an interesting one. The BAC is located in The Back Bay, one of Boston's most upscale neighborhoods. (That wasn't the case when we moved here and built the place in the 1960s; it was pretty rough. The BAC had previously been on Beacon Hill, probably the only place in Boston that's now more exclusive than here.) Anyway, I was at the ATM the other day and looking at the real estate ads in the adjacent realtor's window. A 520 s.f. studio condo in this neighborhood was going for $499K. A 900 s.f. two-bedroom was priced at $799K. All of the listings were roughly $800-900 per square foot. So dense urban neighborhoods, which to some extent we're trying to "escape" through the PUD, are the most desirable real estate in America. But there are equally dense urban neighborhoods in Boston where the prices aren't anywhere near that. So it's not just urban-suburban, not just walking-driving. It's about wanting to be around people like me, because people who aren't like me scare me.
I live in a one bedroom apartment in "The Village of Shorewood", which is basically within blocks from Milwaukee. My wife and I pay around $650 for one bedroom apartment and that's not bad compared to $1,000 that you would pay for living downtown Milwaukee. Now Shorewood its mostly white but since it is really close to UWM a lot of students from different backgrounds rent around the area. Just go across the river and everything changes, the neighborhood there is mostly black. If we wanted we could live aross the river and pay as much as half of what we are paying for rent. The same goes with houses, you could buy a house in our neighborhood(at this point we can't really afford it) for at least $250,000 compared to $150,000 from across the river. As a minority myself I managed to afford an apartment in such place. I guess you can live where ever you want as long as you can afford it. Now that doesn't mean that you are going to be feel welcome if your neighbor looks at you weird because of your skin color or because your are married to a person that is one of them.
Herb raises the question of living where it is fashionable. And since fasionable often implies exclusivity, and people are willing to pay more for that. Why, I don't know for sure, my guess is that they are more concerned with the image they project to the public than they are with being comfortable with where they live. I have a friend who lives in one of the better neighborhoods here in lancaster, and he is one of the most stressed out individuals I know. He doesn't like his neighboors, much less the neighborhood. He is always complaining about his house and how he really doesn't like how it looks. When we suggest that maybe he should move his family to a neighborhood that they would be more comfortable in, he will not do it because he made it, and he wants to be sure that there is no doubt how successful he is, even though he is miserable. Billy Crystal made the statement that it is better look good, than to feel good. Maybe we as a culture need to re-examine that sentiment.
Great observations, I had to laugh though when I read Peter's story about his friend that is living miserably just to project the image of success. My wife and I have some friends that live in a really nice neighborhood, not the best, but a nice one. Their bed is a mattress on the floor, the kids have similar sleeping accommodations, and the dining room doesn't have any furniture. They have lived their at least 6 years that we have known them. But they look good backing out of their 3 car garage in the Excursion! I think a lot of this is the McD's syndrome, "got to have it now". Bickford's points out that its intentional segregation; I think Duncan's article indicates its more wanting to reflect a particular image.
Post a Comment