Friday, December 7, 2012

Blogging Social Justice in Los Angeles: Week 10

Hello Bruins,

I hope finals are treating you all. For my final blog post, I'm discussing Santa Monica. The most definitive characteristic of Santa Monica is most certainly the fact that it is a beach amongst an urban landscape. In this post, I'm going to focus on what coastlines mean to different major urban areas and how Santa Monica strays or coincides from these norms.

Most major cities in the United States and throughout the planet in general are typically placed near coastlines. This was mostly due to the abundance of water and other natural resources. Coastlines and beaches serve different purposes in different major cities. For many urban meccas, the coastline for their city is primarily a site for commerce and trade. Their have been ports establish mostly for the harboring of trade ships. This made the waters of major cities no longer pristine or even inhabitable for leisure. A topic in class was "Mega Cities." These cities hold over 10 Million people. When discussing environmental management, it was obvious that these major cities were especially vulnerable to environmental hazards due to their destruction of their own natural resources.

With that knowledge, its strange to see the condition of Santa Monica is comparison the the coastlines of major cities around the world. The most apparent form of commerce is not trade, but tourism. If there is one street that calls for discussion in Santa Monica, it's Third Street Promenade. Right in the heart of this beach city, its filled with shopping, restaurants, and tourism. Once you leave Third Street, you're on the beach. This landscape contrasts with the major harbors of New York City or Chicago. This beach is for leisure and enjoyment. There aren't barges or oil wells. The closest thing to manufacturing is the pier, covered in rides and games. The water is relatively clean and a public reserve for all to enjoy.

Now let's examine the social differences that exist in Santa Monica. This beach city, in congruence with most of West LA, is quite wealthy. With this apparent wealth allows for a very stark social contrast. Upon entering Santa Monica, the presence of homeless people is almost impossible to ignore. These people stand out amongst all the high end shops and beautiful housing. After spending a few hours walking along the boardwalk and beach it became clear as to why there was so many homeless crammed into one area. The reason for this was the high amount of social programs that the city provides. At 5:00 PM, I saw a line  half a mile long of people waiting in line for free food. Through the lens of what I had learned in class, it was clear that the city's response to the high homeless population was to assist them. The city's solution was social programs to help keep these people healthy to help them eventually rehabilitate back into society. This prevalence of social programming is a stark contrast from the Neo Liberalsim of modern cities.

Here's a photo of the very tourist friendly Santa Monica pier:












2 comments:

  1. Hi!

    For my week 10 blog post I would like to comment on your ideas of Santa Monica. 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 better 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.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Logan,
    I found it very intriguing that you said that Santa Monica is a beach amongst an urban landscape, which differs how one would normally think a typical beach town would be. When one visits Santa Monica on Ocean Ave and Third Street, it does seem very touristy and laid-back. This is different than most urban cities along the coast because they are located there due to ports for large scale commercial activity and trade. This relates to our Megacities lecture because heavily populated areas are more susceptible to environmental hazards (as we have seen with Hurricane Sandy and Katrina.) The fact that they are situated as metropolitan areas such as New York is rather important and any major damage can be detrimental to large, populated cities. However, as you stated it is interesting how this urban beachtown is different than most other cities along the coast. It differs from New York or even New Orleans. California is known for its beaches, therefore I think that the city wishes to have the best of both worlds. Many offices are located in Santa Monica, but it is also very famous for the pier and heavy tourism. Many people visit the metropolitan Los Angeles, therefore when they come to Los Angeles, Santa Monica offers the idealized beaches as well.

    When I have gone to Santa Monica, I also notice a very different route than when I go to downtown Los Angeles. If I take the Big Blue Bus and head west, I stumble upon the federal building and other high-rises, but the setting gets less metropolitan and turns into the beach town and shopping center as it hits the coast. I believe that Santa Monica is probably a beachtown that urbanized as Los Angeles did, because it is now part of metropolitan Los Angeles. What I found very intriguing about your blog post was how you related a positive aspect of an urban city. It was surprising to see that the reason there are so many homeless people is because of programs and assistance that the city offers. I think that is interesting, because it must differ from the downtown Los Angeles area. Often times, homeless are looked down upon, but there definitely are programs to help in the dense metro areas. I could not relate this aspect to any of the readings because they did not really point out anything truly positive about the urban city, which I would definitely like to read more about.

    ReplyDelete