In Response: Santa Monica

This week, I've responded to Andrew Wilson's post on Santa Monica with an article I've recently read on LA Times:


I found it really interesting that the subject of focus on your trip to Santa Monica was the homeless population. This location is usually associated with, as you mentioned in the first paragraph, the wealthy and famous, so I thought it was really great that you noticed something that people usually go out of their way to ignore.

Currently, a legal battle is going on "over whether Los Angeles city officials can seize and dispose of the unattended belonging of the homeless"; some are even considering taking the issue to the Supreme Court. This came out of city public health officials discovering hypothermic needles, human waste, and rat infestations on skid row, the few blocks in downtown Los Angeles with the highest concentrations of homeless. I thought this was relevant to your observations in Santa Monica because in both instances, these underprivileged citizens are made to seem like criminals and lesser humans beings. In your case, you mentioned police patrolling the area, as if expecting the homeless to act out. In mine, I think that had the public health officials discovered those things in a nicer neighborhood, they probably wouldn't think to seize all unattended property in the area. It's disturbing how easy it is to think of homeless people's possessions as less valuable and worthwhile than those of the more fortunate. However, as the article points out, "as shabby as those belongings may sometimes look, they often include important personal possessions such as identification documents, medications, family photographs".

There are, as you also mentioned, some positive notes. This issue is causing the city to reconsider how to deal with the large and growing population of homeless people. Instead of wasting time at the Supreme Court, advocacy groups are suggesting smaller measure that make a much more immediate and significant impact. For example, to combat bad sanitation, it can be as simple as encouraging people on the streets to swap old dirty blankets for new ones.

In a city like Los Angeles, a problem like homelessness probably isn't going to go away any time soon, but it's encouraging to know that there are organisations and individuals out there that try and make the lives of the homeless easier, rather than branding them as criminals and menaces to society.

In Response: Navigating Los Angeles

This week, I responded to Laiza Rodriguez's Week 8 post on busing from UCLA to the San Gabriel Valley:

I read your comment on perspective on an area and realised how true it is. Those of us that come to UCLA are familiar with Wilshire and generally know it to be a safe street to be on, even at night, at least the stretch near UCLA. However, I know people who are from somewhere else and they're intimidated by how big and wide the streets are and how many cars there are. Growing up in LA where cars are such a big part of life, we never really stop and think about how people could see it as something really dangerous and threatening. I realise that I react much the same way as you when I'm somewhere I consider a bit "sketchier". I don't ever usually go out and walk around, but even driving through a bad neighborhood sometimes make me nervous and I check to make sure my windows are up and all my doors are locked. I pay a lot more attention to my surroundings. These are things that I barely give a second thought to when I'm at or near home. It's hard for me to imagine people finding places like, for example, my hometown, a scary place, but like you said before, it's all a matter of perspective. But there's no way to generalise how a person will perceive something based on a single factor such as gender or race.

Week 8: City of Industry

For my blog this week, I decided to look at City of Industry. Industry is a pretty interesting place; located out in the East San Gabriel Valley, it's zoned mostly for industrial and commercial purposes. Its Wikipedia page notes 777 residents in the city, most of whom likely lived there before zoning laws were implemented. I thought to explore this location this week because in class we've been talking about environmental justice and how industrial sites are most likely to border poorer neighborhoods. I used SimplyMaps to look at percentages of households with incomes less than $15,000 in the parts of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino counties that comprise most of Southern California. I then zoomed into Industry to look at the incomes of tracts that are adjacent to the city. Keep in mind that the kind of industry in the city isn't heavy industry; rather, it is mostly company headquarters, warehouses, and distribution centers. It's also interesting to note that there are many strip clubs peppering the area. Looking at the map, we can see that cities bordering Industry do seem to have a higher percentage of households with incomes less than $15,000 compared to cities that are further out. This made me realise that it's not always going to be smokestacks or toxic chemical sites that can affect the quality of an area and make people not want to live there. These kinds of lighter industry also produces chemical and can contaminate water supplies for surrounding areas. My visit was concentrated around the part of Industry that's closest to where I live, and around there I didn't find any residential housings. There are commercial businesses there, for example, plazas with Michael's Arts and Craft Store, In-N-Out, Fresh n Easy, and Kohl's. Of course, because the City of Industry spans such a large and irregular area, I cannot draw a definite conclusion for the entire area. From what I saw though, I can say that no matter the type of industry, it seems that people don't want to live next to areas with ugly warehouse buildings and constant truck traffic. If people have the means, they'll move further away. Some don't, however, and remain powerless and without a say.

Week 7: Santa Anita Mall

This past week we read the chapter in The Blackwell City Reader by Sophie Watson called "City A/Genders". After reading that particular reading, I wanted to explore how cities are designed in such a way that enables sexism and gender discrimination. Watson mentions in the article the idea that historically, women are expected to be confined to the suburbs while men go off to the city to work. Women in the neat, trim suburban single family houses represent a sense of "home" that men get to come back to every night after their 9 to 5 jobs. Cities are built so that spaces where women and their children frequent feel "safe" so that women can perform their duties are "domestic labourers"(Watson, 238).

I felt that malls - a staple of most suburbs here in the United States - are a good representation of how spaces are designed exclusively for a certain gender. A collection of stores that is easily accessible caters to the stereotype that women like to shop. It is okay that most of their time is spent chasing after their children at home because every once in a while, they can indulge themselves by buying a few nice things. Malls also have huge parking lots (great for minivans) and are brightly lit and usually have security guards patrolling, which makes it feel very safe. Especially around the holiday season, malls are decorated to seem like a wonderland, no doubt to encourage consumerism as well. One of the most interesting cases of spatial manipulation I saw is the special expectant mother parking spot (painted in baby pink, no less). Instead of classic handicap parking spots, this mall had designed a space especially for women; however, it's not for just any women, it's for the ones that are fulfilling their duty historically deemed most important - reproducing. In one sense, it's nice to see society going out of its way to make life easier on one particular group. On the other hand, though, it is also clearly a form of discrimination as well.

The location of the expectant mother parking spot in relation to the entrance of the mall.

In Response: Blogging Social Difference in L.A.: Week2

This week, I went back and responded to Kei Komuro's blog about exploring downtown Los Angeles:

I want to first say that the pictures really help to illustrate the points that you make in your entry. The first thing I want to address is your point that inequality exists because of a gap in information. This is definitely a very valid point; if one doesn't have certain knowledge, he probably won't be able to achieve what someone with that knowledge can. However, contrary to what you say, I don't think it's so much that they don't advantage as much as they don't really have that option. It's often agreed that different groups have different access to resources - such as the information capitalism you mentioned - whether due to geographic restrictions, discrimination, or physical disability. For example, the subjects of many of your photos are of African Americans. Society still, to this age, discriminate against minorities. Schools are sometimes ignorant of special needs they might have and the disadvantages they might possess; I'm not just saying this applies to African Americans, but also Latinos and Asians, among other groups. So while it is true that they differ from the businessmen due to the amount of information they possess, I don't think it's because they don't take advantage of what's available to them; rather, I think it's because they simply don't have as much made available to them to begin with.

I really liked the picture of the bus with the advert covering its entire side you included. It does a really good job illustrating how prevalent consumerism really is in our daily lives. Even the most basic and simple things such as transportation has been touched by our consumer culture. Furthermore, it's also very true that it has far-reaching consequences; it not only affects what we buy when we go into a store, but it starts to shape the geography of our city. Many buildings in LA are actually multi-story parking structures that make it as convenient as possible for shoppers. It can also affect how stores or companies present themselves in order to attract customers; for example, it can affect signage or advertising method (putting ads on buses).

Lastly, I want to look at Robert E. Park's words as well. He certainly has a point when he says that the city can be made of many different pieces that touch but don't really interact. Going to different parts of the city, we can see that each little area seem to be catered to different groups of people. This can take the form of, for example, signs in Chinese for immigrants or brand-name shops for the wealthy. This creates an incredibly interesting city to explore, but presents problems as well. The inequality gap is increasing and it makes us reexamine the meaning of diverse. People say LA is diverse because many different groups coexist. However, we then have to ask, what good is coexisting if they don't interact? How much can different groups really learn from each other if they only exist in their own little circles, and just how much can we do if even the very geography of the city facilitates this division?

Week 5: Sawtelle

Last weekend, I went to Sawtelle with a couple of friends. We took the bus there and back, which is always an interesting experience because public transportation is definitely not something I'm used to at all. We actually took it a little ways down, east on Wilshire, and walked from there to a tea shop in Sawtelle, where we took the Culver City bus back to UCLA. The area Sawtelle is probably most well-known among us college students for Sawtelle Boulevard, which has a bunch of Japanese restaurants and shops. I want to connect this to the concept we learned in lecture about Los Angeles having multiple centers. As mentioned in lecture, Los Angeles has not had a real 'center' since the 1920s. Sawtelle is its own center, just as to us, UCLA is also a sort of a center. The area I visited this week houses a younger, trendier Japanese American community, as opposed to Little Tokyo, which is an older, more historical district and again its own center for a distinct group. I think the decentralised structure of the city is what allows diversity to flourish. Groups that are alike, have the same interest, or brought together by culture can concentrate in one area and be their own community, but still be part of a larger metropolis. The agglomeration helps businesses out by providing mutual support and resources. I feel it also helps people not feel so lost in such a big city, because they have a smaller, closer community they can go home to. On the other hand, as I have mentioned in the post about Orange County, decentralisation can also keep groups from interacting with each other. Without one central business district, there is less reason to all come together, and instead of the city being the center, the individual becomes his own center. I think the multi-centered city can help individuals find his place in the community, but it's just as important for him to venture out and not get stuck within his own little bubble.

One of the many nurseries we see as we walk down Sawtelle Blvd. Gardens are a pretty significant part of Japanese American culture.

Week 4: Lanterman Developmental Center

This past weekend, I went home and ended up exploring somewhere that is fairly close to home. Pomona is a few cities over and quite close by, and I remembered that once a few years ago, we accidentally drove into a gated and walled off area, which I later learned was the Lanterman Developmental Center. Lanterman is essentially a rehabilitation center that provides services and supports people with developmental disabilities who need specialised care or caretakers. I had David Sibley's "Mapping the Pure and the Defiled" in mind when I visited this location. In the article, Sibley talks about how those in higher social positions, for example the wealthy and sometimes even the bourgeoise, often design the city in a way that geographically isolates the poorer. They saw this "as a process of purification, designed to exclude groups variously identified as polluting"(383).

I had to drive about 20 from my house to the location. On the day that I went, the gates were closed, so I parked somewhere nearby and got out to walk around briefly. It's the kind of place you stumble upon; when you actually go looking for it, it's difficult, and it's certainly not close to where the rest of the city lives and works.  It's actually around a well-populated residential area, but they designed it so it seems secluded, with a lot of trees surrounding and a gate in front. I think it's supposed to give the impression of being a sanctuary for the patients inside. However, for people on the other side of that (somewhat-figurative) fence, it seems like they're containing the patients. To be completely honest, I felt a little nervous getting out of my car and walking around, although it was in broad daylight. That I think is also a result of what society teaches us. Mental patients aren't dangerous, but then why do they have to be walled off from the rest of us? Why can't they come back out and live as 'normal' members of society until they've been treated? It used to be that people isolated the poor and dirty (two terms that went hand in hand), but once sanitation methods were improved, people literally were not dirty anymore. Society's boundary shifted, and the "list of 'others'" grew to "[include] the mentally disabled, the homeless, prostitutes, and some racialised minorities"(387). The specific group of people being excluded might have changed, but the underlying idea remains the same. Society makes us think that we should be one way, and when people don't fit into the mold, it's becoming common to exclude geographically.