I thought I would address a topic that we talk about a good deal in one of my other classes: residential segregation. We have all seen those maps illustrating such segregation. What's hidden within the maps is the variation (or lack thereof) between impoverished blacks and the black middle-class. The gains of the black middle-class in terms of income and educational attainment are undermined by their increased proximity to concentrated poverty relative to their white counterparts. As with most racial issues, the explanation is historical. The lingering effects of de jure segregation, such as intergenerational wealth inequality, mean that middle-class individuals are unable to utilize the same resources in housing as similarly situated whites. Further, recent studies suggest that racial steering practices (in which realtors withhold houses from certain interested parties) continue to affect the black middle-class disproportionately. 

An article (Karyn R. Lacy - "black spaces, black places: strategic assimilation and identity construction in middle-class suburbia") that was recently assigned for class highlights the role of an understudied factor in the persistence of residential segregation: racial identity construction. Lacy examines two groups of the black middle-class. One group lives in a majority black neighborhood while the other lives in a majority white neighborhood. The biggest difference between the groups is their emphasis upon racially-distinct places. Parents that choose to live in the majority black neighborhood feel that they can better shield their children from the effects of subtle discrimination, as well as demonstrate the value of a black racial identiy. For these individuals, a racially homogenous neighborhood is seen as the best way to maintain group membership. The middle-class blacks living within the majority white neighborhood feel that they can maintain and express their identity through participation in racially homogenous organizations and clubs. For them, the benefits of participation in majority white institutions are worth the risk of discriminatory interaction. To summarize, Lacy's finding suggests that continued residential segregation results (at least given the historical boundary setting of de jure segregation) in part from a willingness to construct racial identity through residence in racially-distinct places. 

            The Occupy Wall Street movement has been one of the more intriguing stories to take place since the fall. An interesting part of this movement is its use of place and space. The encampment at Zucotti Park in the Wall Street section of New York City provided a central location for people to gather at the heart of the problem: Wall Street. With tents, sleeping bags and a large concentration of people, Zucotti Park resembled a refugee camp. Make no mistake, though, even though they had temporarily left their homes, the 99% were able to enjoy many of the comforts of home including, free wi-fi Internet, a library, and a five-star soup kitchen that turned out organic chicken and spaghetti Bolognese one night. Many of the cities neediest 99%, the homeless, began showing up in the camps primarily for the food, only to be kicked out by the protestors. This creates a place that the bookends of society – the wealthy and the poor – are shunned from.

            The police have a noticeable presence at a lot of the bigger Occupy locations and often clash with the protestors. Earlier this week, these two groups had a confrontation at McPherson Square in D.C. This was sparked by protestors’ refusal to dismantle a wooden structure they had set up without a permit. This is very interesting because it brings up and important development with place and space. Often symbolized by objects that represented movement, or a fleeting nature – tents, sleeping bags, tarps, etc. – the Occupy movement is now attempting to create more permanent structures. These Occupy camps have become incredibly important because they are as important as the people in them. Like the bigger cities around them, these camps have their own character and a unique sense of place, one founded more on an idea than anything else. It will be interesting to see what new structures pop up and what clues they offer to regarding the direction of this movement.

 Several hours ago, I read an advertisement that said: "The internet is the best place to buy an engagement ring." I paused. Are there simply no other linguistic alternative for this advertiser to tell people to buy things on the internet, or is the internet perhaps a place? This is weird, right? Even as I attempt to talk about the internet I can't avoid prepositional phrases like "on the internet," or "from the internet." Let's not forget about the term "cyberspace," either. It may be hard to think of the internet as a place, but it's equally difficult to nail it down as something concretely not a place. 

Consider: We used to shop in stores, now we shop on the internet. We used to get our mail from at the end of the driveway, now we get it on the internet. We used to play games in physical spaces with physical people, now competitors together occupy some sort of virtual common visual space and interact, despite being a million miles apart. Regardless of how you personally consider the internet, it's impossible to deny that we talk about it as if it were a place. 

Maybe it's possible to think of the internet as the very antithesis of place, but don't we feel the same kinds of familiarity with web locations that we do with places, as Professor Cannavo defines in his book? We navigate through them and even become upset when they are changed. What's more is that the internet as a virtual place is growing and, as Charlie Stross points out, permeating the physical world and blurring lines between what is virtual and what is actual:

Welcome to a world where the internet has turned inside-out; instead of being something you visit inside a box with a coloured screen, it’s draped all over the landscape around you, invisible until you put on a pair of glasses or pick up your always-on mobile phone. A phone which is to today’s iPhone as a modern laptop is to an original Apple II; a device which always knows where you are, where your possessions are, and without which you are — literally — lost and forgetful.

The Hamilton Admissions Office was recently applauded for printing a minimalist admissions poster that had only the name of the college and a quick response code. Anyone without a smart phone was left high and dry by this poster, but it's being hailed as progressive and forward thinking. 

So what to make of this? Are the two polarities of place--the real and the virtual--becoming one? What does this mean for our sense of relationship with the physical landscape? I can't help but wonder where we will be in ten years.

A lot of the inspiration from this post came from here.

The Central Chinese Television Tower – “Big Underpants” or “Hemorrhoids”?

Although this mostly relates to our discussion earlier in the semester about high modernism, the CCTV Tower in Beijing, China has come to mind on numerous occasions during our class presentations. It wasn’t until I did some searching online when I learned that the official name of the tower is Zhongyang dianshi tai zongbu dalou (Central Television Station General Headquarters). I had come to know the building as the da kucha’r, or “big underpants.”

The “Big Underpants” was completed in 2009 by architects Rem Koolhaas and Ole Scheeren. I remember passing by the giant building on a bus while it was under construction in 2007, thinking that it was the strangest looking building I had ever seen. It was then when a friend riding with me on the bus told me, “Oh yeah, we call it the da kucha’r. I don’t know what the actual name of it is, though.”

As this TIME blog article points out, nicknaming is very common in Chinese society. Nearly everybody has at least one nickname, if not a few, given by family, friends, and colleagues. This is also the case for iconic structures such as the National Center for the Performing Arts, which looks like a giant egg and the Olympic Stadium that resembles a bird’s nest.

Of course, the people at CCTV are unhappy with their headquarters’ nickname and have been trying to promote alternative names. One possibility was the “Wisdom Window,” but that could easily turn into yet another humorous nickname of “hemorrhoids,” which are both pronounced zhichuang.

The author of this article, Austin Ramzy, makes an interesting connection to Confucius’s famous saying about the “rectification of names.” Basically, according to the Great Sage, we should call things what they really are. The Daoists, especially Zhuangzi, might argue that coming up with terminology to distinguish between countless different things only leads to confusion.

It never occurred to me that this kind of nicknaming could be an effective means of expressing public support or protest against an act of founding, such as that of the CCTV Tower. How does this nicknaming phenomenon fit in with founding and preservation? Do we see this happening in other societies? What are the effects?

http://china.blogs.time.com/2008/11/13/naming-the-cctv-tower-or-why-big-underpants-is-better-than-hemorrhoids/

P.S.: The tower mysteriously caught on fire in 2009 during the Chinese New Year, which stirred up a great deal of controversy. There are some interesting pictures and information on this website:

http://www.chinasmack.com/2009/pictures/beijing-cctv-building-on-fire-news-censored.html

After watching Garbage Dreams I was really surprised to see how passionate the zabaleen are about their profession. Not only is garbage the livelihood for the zabaleen, but the people take pride in their work and see the recycling that they do as being extremely important. As evidenced by the shots of the community meetings, the majority of the people while perhaps not always satisfied with their lot in life nonetheless care deeply for what they do and how well they do it. Mark Kramer’s Dispossessed illustrated this pride to an extent, but I think that seeing the young men in Garbage Dreams on their visit to the new landfill really drove home what it means to be zabaleen and exactly how terrible the threat of the foreign waste disposal companies are. Not only does the newer system of waste disposal essentially displace the zabaleen and push them further into poverty it also completely reverses the rate of recycling. The zabaleen recycle 80% of the garbage they collect while the foreign companies only recycle 20%. This figure alone should be reason enough for Cairo to find a different solution to the city’s garbage problems and slums. Unfortunately I think that Cairo has fallen for the myth of progress. Cairo is too preoccupied with appearing modern and implementing a Western waste disposal system that the city does not see that by “progressing” to match developed countries the it is inadvertently moving backwards in the environmental realm. Obviously there are some benefits to an organized waste disposal system, yet I think that in this case the environmental and social justice issues far outweigh any positives gained by Cairo using foreign companies to handle its garbage.

The recycling rate of the zabaleen also makes me seriously question the technology and efforts that the western world puts into recycling. 80% is extremely high, far higher than the figure that was given when the young men were abroad in Wales or the recycling efforts in the United States.  I think that necessity drives the zabaleen to recycle efficiently, yet I wonder why the developed word cannot achieve the same or higher rates.

Hello Everyone, I am providing some of my thoughts on the hydrofracking panel and am hopeful others can contribute their own. I actually am particularly interested in hearing what your guys thoughts are about hydrofracking, particularly whether it should be undertaken in New York and if the panel led you to have any different opinions.

Overall, I thought the panel was rather interesting and informative. I particularly found the talk on regulating hydrofracking from the former DEC member interesting (though at the same time borring, I bet some of you understand what I mean). It provided us with an insight into the hydrofracking issue from another perspective that I feel as though the papers we read for class did not quite provide.

I do feel as though both panelists were in favor of hydrofracking even if they did not explicitly say so, though I appreciated both their acknowledgements of the dangers of hydrofracking and their insistence on the need to think about it critically and thoroughly before acting.

Going into the panel I was really not sure whether or not hydrofracking should be undertaken in New York. I could not decide if the positives outweighed the negatives or not and also I feel as though big part of me just really wanted hydrofracking to stay out of New York. However, as the panelists discussed hydrofracking I progressively began to feel as though New York should issue permits. I am not entirely sure why I began to have a change of heart, but by the end of the panel I would have described myself, based on the descriptions provided by the panelist,  as an environmental pragmatist. I suppose I define myself this way because I personally fear Global warming more than hydrofracking and have at least some faith in the government to regulate hydrofracking.  I, like most, believe that humans are going to have to make some sacrifices in able to help limit global warming and, unfortunately, the damages of hydrofracking may not only be worth taking on, but also necessary if it can, in fact, help limit our carbon foot print. Further, I also think that the potential for hydrofracking to help limit our need for foreign oil and potentially lessen our dependence on and interactions with the middle east cannot be understated. Though inevitably some of you may disagree with me, I fear that this is the sort of sacrifice we may have to make to stem Global warming, and though it may ruin towns, hurt some economies, and destroy our vistas it may still be worthwhile.

I found the questions, and inevitably speeches, provided by the crowd were interesting and I some of them seemed to be well informed. However, the rather derogatory and negative stance  a few members of the crowd took towards the panelists turned me off and I found that it led me to take a more pro hydrofracking side. Obviously this is not a legitimate reason for supporting hydrofracking, but one can help but be influenced by the human beings around you.

I would like to conclude with a reminder that I, like most of you (I would guess), do not support reckless and radical hydrofracking in New York. I believe it should be introduced slowly and it should be well regulated, in the hopes that it will help solve some of our energy issues.

             In my mind the Adirondacks clearly stick out as an obvious example of Cronon’s ideal that exists in today’s world. Interestingly (and I find, confusingly), though Cronon mentions the Adirondacks as an example of a national park created in the late 19^th century, he does not later mention it as an example of the type of symbiotic relationship between man and nature that he envisions throughout the paper.  Why do you think that is?

            In almost every way, the Adirondack Park, which was declared a “forever wild” forest preserve in 1915, is Cronon’s ideal.  It is home to the famed Adirondack Mountains and to 90% of all wildlife species found in the northwestern U.S. (Jenkins, X).  But it is also home to another species: humans. Approximately 137,000 people live in the Park year-round. There are roads, towns, villages, hotels, and amusement parks within the Blue Line.  In the foreward to The Adirondack Atlas, Bill McKibben wrote, “[the Adirondack Park] is the earth’s single great example of successful ecosystem restoration. But if that is all that the visitor notices, then they miss what may bet the park’s real glory—the fact that all this wilderness coexists with human settlement. That this is not Yellowstone—that it is something far more real, and hence far more useful as a model” (Jenkins, VIII).

             As expressed by Bill McKibben, the coexistance of people and nature within the Blue Line defines the Adirondacks as a place. As McKibben emphasized, the Adirondacks are distinguishable from every other state or national park because of this single feature. By its very nature, the Park exudes a sense of morality that others have already identified as a model for how humans can—and should—live in this world (Jenkins, VIII). This is not to say that the Park is perfect; it has suffered serious deforestation and other man-inflicted wounds throughout its history. However, I think Cronon would have to agree that the Adirondacks currently stand as the best example of how to overcome the trouble with wilderness.

For anyone who lives or has lived in the Adirondacks-- does it seem like this is the case? Is there a particular sense of "home" in the Park (as Cronon indicates is important to overcoming the trouble with wilderness)? I suspect that the answer is yes, but since I have never lived in the Adirondacks, I don't want to jump to conclusions.

http://www.risingtidenorthamerica.org/wordpress/2008/09/10/white-roofs-white-pavement/

I read this article recently because after my Mom sent it to me.  It is about the usefulness of replacing roofing and pavement materials with more reflective surfaces to offset global warming.  Apparently having white roofs has been a building practice in warmer climates as it lowers costs of air conditioning, but a study released at the 2008 Climate Change Research Conference in Sacramento supported white roofing materials as a strategy to fight global warming.  California is the only state to enforce building codes on commericial buildings to use white or heat reflecting materials for their roofs, but if it were to become a nationwide trend, carbon dioxide emmission could plummet.  A physicist from Berkeley estimated that the average american home could offset 10 metric tons of carbio dioxide emissions if their roofs were replaced with white materials instead of black shingles.  The article also talks about replacing asphalt roads with concrete roads as concrete is much lighter than asphalt.  Combined, roads and roofs account for 60% of urban surfaces worldwide.  One study said that if 100 major urban cities switched their paving and roofing practices it would offset 44 gigatons of greenhouse gases.  This would allow for the fighting of glabal warming in a way that does not affect our industrial production.  

That is not to say that implementing concrete roads and white houses would not be a major overhaul.  In fact it would challenge every architectural norm out there.  Homes would be changed forever and I feel that many people would adopt a NIMBY attitude to such practices.  I could only imagine going onto google earth and feeling like I am in a white-out at some college sporting event.  It does not seem like a big deal to make all roofs white, but it would challnege many concepts of home.  Presuming this would be an expensive overhaul, old homes would be torn down rather than brought up to new building codes.  Replacing roads and implementing new paving techniques would create a lot of jobs in the U.S. but it would make more sense to implement thses ideas in developing cities who have more of a blank slate to work with than stubborn Americans.  Atlanta residents (who have now started creating their own weather! from their massive amounts of sprawl) would especially benefit from these new practices.  It seems that all the green movement should take notice of the white movemnt.