For my week 10 blog post I would like to comment on UCLAngelino's ideas of Santa Monica.
The original post can be found here:
http://uclangelino.blogspot.com/2012/12/blogging-social-justice-in-los-angeles.html
I think its interesting how you pointed out that the city is not only a place of tourism, but also contains a large population of homeless - and a program to assist them. It's almost ironic how it was discussed in "Greening the Ghetto" that those that live in lower income neighborhoods must suffer environmental inequality and degradation. However, in this case, the homeless are able to remain in one of the most desired and popular areas, while receiving assistance (unlike the ghetto neighborhoods). It is true that the homeless do not have homes as those in the ghetto do, but they are present in one of the most eco-friendly areas and are able to stay there. Santa Monica strives to improve the sustainability of their city - they have the SMURF water cleaning facility, as well as special construction methods and roads to prevent waste of water and energy (even the solar powered ferris wheel at the pier!). It is surprising to think that those that can afford to live in the area are kind enough to assist the homeless, rather than pushing them away with strict law enforcement, limited physical access, or something similar to the carceral archipelago we discussed in class. In this case, the homeless are not suffering environmental inequality as the ghetto does. Its interesting how cities would rather reach out to those without homes (who often do not try to find a job), than those that are struggling to work and live where they can.
On the topic of environmental inequality, I would also like to refer to this article:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/12/ucla-researchers-want-la-candidates-to-address-environmental-issues.html
This article discusses the Los Angeles concern regarding environmental issues, but one quote in particular that stood out was:
"Of particular concern are so-called “toxic hot spots:” low-income communities such as Boyle Heights, Watts and Wilmington burdened with a disproportionate share of pollution from hazardous facilities and transportation corridors. Those neighborhoods suffer higher rates of asthma, lung disease and premature death.
Better land use planning, increased enforcement and targeted economic development could enhance the quality of life for all Angelenos, UCLA law professor Cara Horowitz said."
In the mega city of Los Angeles, new environmental programs may be established, and the low income communities are said to be kept in mind. However, Horowitz did not discuss how this change will come about - with better land use planning, where will the current hazardous facilities move to? Or where will future ones be placed? If they must be placed in any area of Los Angeles, where else can they be? The residents of Malibu, Bel Air, Beverly Hills, and all of the upper class areas would never let it move into their neighborhoods, and would easily fight the transition with money. Even the middle class areas would be dead against the change as well - everyone wants the best for themselves and will do so if they can afford it. They may care about the welfare of others, to some extent such as reaching out to the homeless, but they would never sacrifice their own hard-earned living conditions for the betterment of a low-income neighborhood and greening the ghetto. I feel as if everyone knows that environmental degradation and inequality is an issue that needs to be dealt with, but many empty words and promises are spoken - as there is no good solution for this at the time.
Another article that interested me was about an issue in Malibu:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/12/whale-carcass-malibu-1.html
This article discusses the rotting carcass of a whale, and the smell that came with it. Because the Los Angeles County would not dispose of the body, Malibu residents belonging to the local home owners association paid a private company to remove it from the area. If the community did not have the money to do so, such as a low-income area, the whale would have remained and continued to rot until it was completely deteriorated. If Malibu residents will not tolerate a temporary smell in their neighborhood, they would never accept a transition of toxic hot spots and hazardous facilities toward their area and homes.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Blogging Social Difference in LA: Week 9
I'd like to respond to Laiza's post about Montebello for this week:
http://uclageography.blogspot.com/2012/11/week-7.html
She writes about her trip to Montebello and how a large portion of the city is comprised of oil fields and pumps - a common sight in low-income neighborhoods as David Harvey had theorized. These surrounding areas were less affluent when the oil fields were first established, however today they have improved and neighborhoods may soon oppose these environmental hazards (especially after a recent oil spill and fire; http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/oil-field-fire-in-montebello.html).
Using Simply Maps, I found that the income of the area has indeed increased from the 2000 census vs the more recent 2010 census as well.
In the past, I'm sure the population tolerated the oil fields because they had no other choice, and they probably did not realize the risks they faced as Laiza had said. However, with the new environmental awareness today, and the increase of income in the Montebello area, there may be new opposition arising. What can be done though? Since nature often reflects wealth, status, and health, as the population income and environmental awareness increases, inhabitants may choose to move away. But this does not solve the issue; the problem will only propagate because land value will remain low due to the environmental hazards, and new low-income populations may move in to replace the old. I'm guessing it would be almost a self-replicating cycle unless action is taken to move the oil fields or something about the environmental risks is done. Since this highly unlikely due to the high costs and question of where to place hazards, it is also an encouragement for the ecological modernization view rather than the standard view of the environment.
Based on the environmental views we discussed in class, we learned that the standard view often taken in the past, was the idea that the environment should support all economic development and needs - and problems should therefore be dealt with later and 'after the fact.' This may soon become one of those problems that will have to be solved sooner than later, and can help encourage the ecological modernization view - that economic activity may cause environmental damage, and pre-emptive solutions should be sought. We must learn to look for these solutions in advance and increase awareness of the environmental degradation due to economic needs. Society should no longer believe that the environment is mean to support the economy and can be handled later.
http://uclageography.blogspot.com/2012/11/week-7.html
She writes about her trip to Montebello and how a large portion of the city is comprised of oil fields and pumps - a common sight in low-income neighborhoods as David Harvey had theorized. These surrounding areas were less affluent when the oil fields were first established, however today they have improved and neighborhoods may soon oppose these environmental hazards (especially after a recent oil spill and fire; http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/oil-field-fire-in-montebello.html).
Using Simply Maps, I found that the income of the area has indeed increased from the 2000 census vs the more recent 2010 census as well.
 |
| Total household income - 2000 |
 |
| Total household income - 2010 |
 |
| Dominant Hispanic population |
In the past, I'm sure the population tolerated the oil fields because they had no other choice, and they probably did not realize the risks they faced as Laiza had said. However, with the new environmental awareness today, and the increase of income in the Montebello area, there may be new opposition arising. What can be done though? Since nature often reflects wealth, status, and health, as the population income and environmental awareness increases, inhabitants may choose to move away. But this does not solve the issue; the problem will only propagate because land value will remain low due to the environmental hazards, and new low-income populations may move in to replace the old. I'm guessing it would be almost a self-replicating cycle unless action is taken to move the oil fields or something about the environmental risks is done. Since this highly unlikely due to the high costs and question of where to place hazards, it is also an encouragement for the ecological modernization view rather than the standard view of the environment.
Based on the environmental views we discussed in class, we learned that the standard view often taken in the past, was the idea that the environment should support all economic development and needs - and problems should therefore be dealt with later and 'after the fact.' This may soon become one of those problems that will have to be solved sooner than later, and can help encourage the ecological modernization view - that economic activity may cause environmental damage, and pre-emptive solutions should be sought. We must learn to look for these solutions in advance and increase awareness of the environmental degradation due to economic needs. Society should no longer believe that the environment is mean to support the economy and can be handled later.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Blogging Social Difference in LA: Week 8
For this week's post, I ventured to Van Nuys with a few friends. We drove to watch a Muay Thai fight at one of their local gyms, but also stayed in the area to walk around to eat and explore. I would like to use this experience in order to compare ideas with our lecture, Axes of Difference.
I had always thought of Van Nuys as a predominately Asian area, as I have only ever been to the Ranch 99 Asian Market and other Asian restaurants in the area with my family. This time however, walking around I saw a few small liquor stores, a strange restaurant called "Hogley Wogley" if I remember correctly, a Denny's restaurant, an Astin Martin car dealership, a take out Hawaiian BBQ restaurant, a Taco Bell, and an old low-income neighborhood. It was quite strange to see all these clashing businesses and differences within the same few blocks.
Using Simply Maps, I looked up the dominant races of the area and found that it is comprised of Asian and Hispanic populations with a mixture of low to middle ranged income. Why was an Astin Martin car dealership was present? I have no idea. Maybe the land/rent for their business is cheap and they figure customers with the money to buy their cars will come to them.
Anyways, thinking of Max Weber's idea of class difference, that differences often depend on culture, seems like a good comparison for my experience in Van Nuys. If you examine the Simply Maps closer, you can see that the Asian population is dominant in the bottom area with the higher income, whereas the Hispanic population is dominant in the upper area of the map with lower income. This may be attributed from their own culture pertaining to anything from religion to their occupation or lifestyles. Asians are often very hard working and persistent, as well as dedicated to their beliefs or current goals. I could definitely see this trait at the Muay Thai fight I attended; the host gym kept it very traditional, and often their own members would pray and conduct rituals before each fight. The competitors from other gyms were often Hispanic or White, and seemed confused by the ritualistic behavior - some even seemed to smirk or laugh. Although religion and culture do not necessarily make one better than another in life, it may be an encouragement/dedication that keeps one humble and motivated to continue and strive to better themselves.
I also want to quickly discuss gender differences, and how it is a floating signifier that represents different images and ideas depending on the time, context, and culture. In many cultures (especially Asian) I know that women are not regarded as equal to men. They are often not seen as sacred or strong, and are not accepted or allowed to partake in traditional rituals. For example, a few years back I attended the traditional Kantou Festival in Japan with my brother. Heavy lanterns are carried throughout the festival by groups of men who would occasionally stop and allow the crowd to take pictures or attempt to hold a lantern. When one of these groups came toward us, I learned the hard way that women are not allowed to touch or take part in this tradition. My brother held a lantern to take a picture, but I was yelled at and shooed away as I approached to touch one. This was not my first time with an experience like this either. When I was younger, I was part of a traditional Chinese lion dance group, and we would perform for special occasions such as Chinese New Year or personal weddings. At the end of a show, we would always step out of the lion in order to bow, and I often became accustomed to hearing gasps of awe when the audience saw that I was not a man. There was one show that it was requested that I could not perform, and they asked me to stand aside while a man took my place instead - as the bride and groom felt that I would bring bad luck to their blessing of the lions. So returning to my point of the Muay Thai competition I attended a few days ago, I realized that there were very few women present, and most definitely not in the ring to compete. I feel as if martial arts is still regarded as a man's sport (especially as I used to learn Kung Fu as well) and it is not the accepted image for women.
Culture plays a large role in differences, whether is it class differences or the floating signifier of gender. Although these differences are not as predominant in today's society, they still exist and can be seen when they are looked for.
I had always thought of Van Nuys as a predominately Asian area, as I have only ever been to the Ranch 99 Asian Market and other Asian restaurants in the area with my family. This time however, walking around I saw a few small liquor stores, a strange restaurant called "Hogley Wogley" if I remember correctly, a Denny's restaurant, an Astin Martin car dealership, a take out Hawaiian BBQ restaurant, a Taco Bell, and an old low-income neighborhood. It was quite strange to see all these clashing businesses and differences within the same few blocks.
Using Simply Maps, I looked up the dominant races of the area and found that it is comprised of Asian and Hispanic populations with a mixture of low to middle ranged income. Why was an Astin Martin car dealership was present? I have no idea. Maybe the land/rent for their business is cheap and they figure customers with the money to buy their cars will come to them.
 |
| Large Hispanic population |
 |
| Large Asian population |
 |
| Mixed household incomes |
Anyways, thinking of Max Weber's idea of class difference, that differences often depend on culture, seems like a good comparison for my experience in Van Nuys. If you examine the Simply Maps closer, you can see that the Asian population is dominant in the bottom area with the higher income, whereas the Hispanic population is dominant in the upper area of the map with lower income. This may be attributed from their own culture pertaining to anything from religion to their occupation or lifestyles. Asians are often very hard working and persistent, as well as dedicated to their beliefs or current goals. I could definitely see this trait at the Muay Thai fight I attended; the host gym kept it very traditional, and often their own members would pray and conduct rituals before each fight. The competitors from other gyms were often Hispanic or White, and seemed confused by the ritualistic behavior - some even seemed to smirk or laugh. Although religion and culture do not necessarily make one better than another in life, it may be an encouragement/dedication that keeps one humble and motivated to continue and strive to better themselves.
 |
| Waiting for the fight to begin |
I also want to quickly discuss gender differences, and how it is a floating signifier that represents different images and ideas depending on the time, context, and culture. In many cultures (especially Asian) I know that women are not regarded as equal to men. They are often not seen as sacred or strong, and are not accepted or allowed to partake in traditional rituals. For example, a few years back I attended the traditional Kantou Festival in Japan with my brother. Heavy lanterns are carried throughout the festival by groups of men who would occasionally stop and allow the crowd to take pictures or attempt to hold a lantern. When one of these groups came toward us, I learned the hard way that women are not allowed to touch or take part in this tradition. My brother held a lantern to take a picture, but I was yelled at and shooed away as I approached to touch one. This was not my first time with an experience like this either. When I was younger, I was part of a traditional Chinese lion dance group, and we would perform for special occasions such as Chinese New Year or personal weddings. At the end of a show, we would always step out of the lion in order to bow, and I often became accustomed to hearing gasps of awe when the audience saw that I was not a man. There was one show that it was requested that I could not perform, and they asked me to stand aside while a man took my place instead - as the bride and groom felt that I would bring bad luck to their blessing of the lions. So returning to my point of the Muay Thai competition I attended a few days ago, I realized that there were very few women present, and most definitely not in the ring to compete. I feel as if martial arts is still regarded as a man's sport (especially as I used to learn Kung Fu as well) and it is not the accepted image for women.
Culture plays a large role in differences, whether is it class differences or the floating signifier of gender. Although these differences are not as predominant in today's society, they still exist and can be seen when they are looked for.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Blogging Social Difference in LA: Week 7
This week I decided to write about Westwood, an area familiar to all of those from UCLA. I venture to Westwood at least once or twice a week - whether its to shop, eat, take a break, or buy groceries. Although I had never considered it before, I've realized that Westwood is an interesting area in the sense that is has so many conflicting auras. In one regard, it is a college town comprised of young undergraduate or graduate students, however there is also an older wealthy population (from Bel Air and Westwood homes - since they are priced only for the wealthy), as well as the homeless and poor that live on the streets.
Using Simply Maps, I researched the dominant age/income of the populations.
Using Simply Maps, I researched the dominant age/income of the populations.
 |
| UCLA and immediate area dominant with college students Surrounded/enclosed by older population |
 |
| The total income for the area - predominantly high (but mixed lows) |
Friday, November 9, 2012
Blogging Social Difference in LA: Week 6
Response to John Hayes:
http://hayesjgeog151.blogspot.com/2012/11/week-4-gate.html
In John's Week 5 blog post, he discusses the debate between the locals of Long Beach and Hawaiian Gardens - and the controversy the idea of a barrier had sparked. The article he refers to is:
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-09/news/hl-65459_1_el-dorado-park-estates-hawaiian-gardens-city-council-traffic-barrier
I agree with John, that this barrier's true purpose is most likely to segregate the two communities, rather than to minimize traffic. Even if traffic is diverted, it is done so at the expense of Hawaiian Gardens - while the upper class of Long Beach enjoys their new enclosure. The inhabitants of Long Beach believe that they deserve only the best and to take what they need (similar to the Bourgeoisie); especially when they view Hawaiian Gardens as the cause to all their problems (theft, graffiti, etc).
However, maybe this barrier would help the area since it was originally the development of transportation and movement that brought the destruction of the concentric ring model. With limited transportation and access, would those in Hawaiian Gardens cause crime in their own city if the upper class area is no longer accessible?
Carceral archipelagos and barriers are created to prevent the degradation of communities - for example how Professor Wilford referred to Skid Row. Physical barriers are actually quite common today as well, such as gated housing areas and communities. I'm not sure what the correct answer is, if the barrier between Long Beach and Hawaiian Gardens is a good or bad thing - but we do know that it is unfair for those in Hawaiian Gardens to experience the surplus traffic and segregated implications.
http://hayesjgeog151.blogspot.com/2012/11/week-4-gate.html
In John's Week 5 blog post, he discusses the debate between the locals of Long Beach and Hawaiian Gardens - and the controversy the idea of a barrier had sparked. The article he refers to is:
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-09/news/hl-65459_1_el-dorado-park-estates-hawaiian-gardens-city-council-traffic-barrier
I agree with John, that this barrier's true purpose is most likely to segregate the two communities, rather than to minimize traffic. Even if traffic is diverted, it is done so at the expense of Hawaiian Gardens - while the upper class of Long Beach enjoys their new enclosure. The inhabitants of Long Beach believe that they deserve only the best and to take what they need (similar to the Bourgeoisie); especially when they view Hawaiian Gardens as the cause to all their problems (theft, graffiti, etc).
However, maybe this barrier would help the area since it was originally the development of transportation and movement that brought the destruction of the concentric ring model. With limited transportation and access, would those in Hawaiian Gardens cause crime in their own city if the upper class area is no longer accessible?
Carceral archipelagos and barriers are created to prevent the degradation of communities - for example how Professor Wilford referred to Skid Row. Physical barriers are actually quite common today as well, such as gated housing areas and communities. I'm not sure what the correct answer is, if the barrier between Long Beach and Hawaiian Gardens is a good or bad thing - but we do know that it is unfair for those in Hawaiian Gardens to experience the surplus traffic and segregated implications.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Blogging Social Difference in LA: Week 5
I drove home this past weekend, from Los Angeles to Camarillo, CA. It's amazing how different these two places can be, even though the distance between them is relatively small. Camarillo is a small suburban area north of Los Angeles, and is known for its proximity to agricultural lands and the beach.
Similar to what we learned in lecture about the 4th Urban Revolution, I believe Camarillo began to develop rapidly and expand as mobility and transportation did as well. The entire county was predominantly farmland in the past, but has developed into a desirable area for those who are retired or commuting to Los Angeles. With the decentralization and transformation of the concentric ring model, homes became the new focus and center - with transportation and communication allowing for all other necessities. The development of suburbs such as Camarillo, allowed for outward expansion of the population and the possibility of living further away from the city. Those who desire homes in the suburbs can escape the noise, night life, bus systems, unsafe areas, traffic, and overall city living.
However, this made me realize that suburban areas are exclusive in terms of geographic differences discussed in class. Physical access is limited to those without cars or mobility (there is no public transportation available) and many neighborhoods are restricted by gated access as well. In social differences, the city consists of middle to upper class white families or retired couples - and may make others feel unwelcome or out of place. It's strange that areas of Los Angeles can be so restrictive and consist of upscale living in the city, yet there is also this same effect in the suburbs for those who want a more peaceful lifestyle. Unless one chooses to live in the absolute middle of no where (not a suburb or areas near cities/jobs) or live in the outskirts/cheaper areas of a large city, it seems that there is no place that is affordable and welcoming. It appears to be impossible to create a new model for the patterns of society..
Similar to what we learned in lecture about the 4th Urban Revolution, I believe Camarillo began to develop rapidly and expand as mobility and transportation did as well. The entire county was predominantly farmland in the past, but has developed into a desirable area for those who are retired or commuting to Los Angeles. With the decentralization and transformation of the concentric ring model, homes became the new focus and center - with transportation and communication allowing for all other necessities. The development of suburbs such as Camarillo, allowed for outward expansion of the population and the possibility of living further away from the city. Those who desire homes in the suburbs can escape the noise, night life, bus systems, unsafe areas, traffic, and overall city living.
However, this made me realize that suburban areas are exclusive in terms of geographic differences discussed in class. Physical access is limited to those without cars or mobility (there is no public transportation available) and many neighborhoods are restricted by gated access as well. In social differences, the city consists of middle to upper class white families or retired couples - and may make others feel unwelcome or out of place. It's strange that areas of Los Angeles can be so restrictive and consist of upscale living in the city, yet there is also this same effect in the suburbs for those who want a more peaceful lifestyle. Unless one chooses to live in the absolute middle of no where (not a suburb or areas near cities/jobs) or live in the outskirts/cheaper areas of a large city, it seems that there is no place that is affordable and welcoming. It appears to be impossible to create a new model for the patterns of society..
 |
| Las Posas Road, Camarillo CA - Sunday 12pm (large roads, no pedestrians, little traffic, landscaping) |
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Blogging Social Difference in LA: Week 4
 |
| As I first stepped on the #1 Blue Bus (Prior to the screaming man) |
Bus systems and transportation led to the decentralization of the concentric ring model, and created the ability to have a personal center (such as the home). However, it also creates a difference in physical access in regards to urban mobilities - those who can afford to have a car and drive, in comparison to those who must take public transit (or those who strive to be green and eco-friendly). Busses and public transportation may have become known for its negative aspects rather than the positive due to the difference in classes and people that use them. [added 12/9 - transportation seems to be another type of cultural or floating signifier; those who have wealth and status would never use public transportation. Since public transportation may symbolize low-income as a signifier, many cities do not offer busses or trains. For example, my home city of Camarillo does not have public transportation, and I rarely see taxis or shuttles either. It prevents those who cannot afford cars or means of their own transportation from moving into, or living near our city - a form of restricting physical access as discussed in the 'Theorizing Socio-Cultural Difference' lecture]
But to discuss my destination on the bus; Santa Monica is a popular destination for many people - shoppers, tourists, college students, couples, etc. It's a beautiful place to explore, especially on a sunny afternoon with its close proximity to the pier, beach, outdoor mall, and restaurants. It's an area perfect for a day out, a nice location to visit but not necessarily to live in. The traffic is bad, there is little parking, rent and living costs are high, and some streets don't seem too safe either (I would not want to walk around by myself at night).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)