The Burgess article deals with the physical expansion of the city, how that takes place, and what that means in terms of mobility for a population and individual. I focused more on the earlier section, describing the layout of a city that was seen by Burgess in 1926. He uses Chicago as his main example (he was a professor at the University of Chicago) for how the American city has developed, first identifying that the city is not defined purely by its official borders anymore, that instead it bleeds out into "the metropolitan area of the city" which includes "satellite" communities that are still affected by the larger city center. People come in and out the city everyday, some further than others. The city itself though, is zoned into different rings that he describes with various people living and working in each.
This "concentric zone model" as it is widely known now is the basis for how cities have been thought to be set up and aspire to. There is a Central Business District (CBD) in the middle with major financial operations, other business, culture, arts, sports, and entertainment. This is circled by industry and sometimes ghettos and slums of the urban poor that make up the factory ring and zone of transition. This area is often inhabited by immigrants and the working poor that take jobs requiring low skill. As you move out, the zones become gradually wealthier and stabler with residents that are better educated, more mobile, and less inclined to "vice".
Below is an illustration of the zone model
source:http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0napoHGhB1rrnij4o1_1280.jpg
Los Angeles was and still is remotely based off this model, with central downtown being that middle point, the working poor and ethnic neighborhoods surrounding like Skid Row, Chinatown, Japan town, the City of Vernon, Little Ethiopia, Korea town, and more. Further out you find working and middle class neighborhoods till you hit other neighborhoods and cities like Pasadena, a wealthy area of residents who mostly commute to work. The question has to be asked then, how does the Rose Bowl (unlike the Coliseum in Downtown LA) function as a major center of sports that attracts anywhere from 60,000-90,000 people every week or so for 3 months in the middle of a residential neighborhood?
The answer is not a clear or easy one, further insight can be brought in though from the Kling, Olin, and Poster article, which discusses the growth and urbanization of nearby Orange COunty. This area which was mostly a "bedroom community" quickly became urban and has more jobs in the county than beds now, a complete reversal of an area that was meant to serve as a satellite community for the wealthy to commute into L.A. Pasadena, while not in this exact position, is part of L.A. that too is more of a polycentric model with mixings of people all across the city, although tradition ethnic neighborhoods definitely still exist.
Observing the relationship of the Rose Bowl to the local community by driving around the streets and neighborhood was incredibly interesting. As a resident who might want to run an errand or move around the local freeways in a car, it becomes extremely difficult with so many people moving around. Roads are blocked off that require special ID access and verification of residence. Thousands of cars fill up the streets bringing noise and pollution to a relatively quiet community. This is not to mention the type of coming to the area. Most people coming to a football game are not doing so quietly as honking for teams, cheering, and music can be heard all around the streets and in the arroyo surrounding the Rose Bowl. They are eating and drinking, often times for a very long period of time, while hanging out with friends new and old. They come from all over Los Angeles and the nation to watch the game, bringing in people of varying age, race, and economic class than is found in white upper middle class Pasadena. Police are there escorting cars through the streets, in addition to high school age and older kids wearing vests who direct traffic, knowing no more about it than I would if I got out of my car. It makes for an extremely eclectic group of people all together in this area that is usually so homogenous.
In case you wonder what a section of a stadium that is currently holding 70,000+ people looks like, see below.
What makes the whole situation more interesting, especially in light of the Burgess reading, is that while Pasadena has that strong WASP idea and image, just a mile or so east of the 210 freeway that runs next to the Rose Bowl and a bit north of Old Pasadena is the neighborhood of Altadena that I went into to grab gas. Looking at it blindly, you would think you went into Inglewood or something. The types of businesses change, the housing architecture and size, and even the people look different to put it bluntly. It is a reminder that while the L.A. area might look to be your traditional city with a downtown, it quickly diverts from the concentric zone model that Burgess describes in early 20th century Chicago. It is another example of how cities and regions are no longer being defined by old principles or dictations.
*Updated 12/8/12*
Continuing on the theme of social clash between the Rose Bowl and the people of Pasadena, a few weeks ago, Pasadena city officials moved forward with a plan that could allow the NFL to move a team to the city to play while a downtown stadium is constructed. After a 5 hour debate on the issue, the city council voted to allow more large events to be housed at the venue, essentially opening up the possibility of the another football team to play there. The main reason for this move is the need to meet a $30 million budget gap the city has on the new Rose Bowl renovations taking place. Because this would be a temporary move, the hope is that it will last long enough to help pay for the renovations and then move on to the new stadium.
Many residents and residential groups are opposing this move as it will bring even more traffic on the weekends, sometimes shutting down streets and nearby recreational services for a whole weekend if there are both Saturday and Sunday games scheduled. It's a great example of how individual interests and community interests are not always the same, there is no single idea of what is best for city, even in a smaller and homogenous one like Pasadena.
The article can be found here: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/11/rose-bowl-neighbors-threaten-lawsuit-over-nfl-plans.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI find Nicholas's interpretation of Pasadena (and simultaneously Los Angeles) in reference to the works of Burgess and Kling, Olin, and Poster rather interesting. By referencing Burgess, Nicholas refers to the Chicago School's belief in the concentric ring model, where the city was centered around one area- the point of economic concentration. I highly appreciate Nicholas's interpretation of the Rose Bowl as one such "economic center," as it certainly draws in people from all surrounding areas on a regular basis to partake in economic activity (yay for Football!). This center is then surrounded by residential areas, similar in process to the concept presented in Burgess's model. Thus, the Rose Bowl could potentially partially serve as one such focal point in a set of concentric rings for Pasadena.
ReplyDeleteYet, I would like, however, to disagree with Nicholas's suggestion that the Burgess model is fully and currently still applicable to Los Angeles, and simultaneously, Pasadena. I am a believer in the post-modern/post-fordist model in which the city rather follows a model of poly-centricity, having many focal points that comprise the geographic makeup of the city. Nicholas suggests that downtown is the central point for Los Angeles, and then the city subsequently goes out in concentric circles from this point. And yet, we have discussed in class that Los Angeles is one of those cities that does not follow the Burgess Concentric Model well, as its layout is far from the traditional concentric theory. Instead, I believe that Los Angeles has no real center, and that the "center" of the city is contingent on the cultural and social makeup of the group(s) who live in the city, and thus have to choose their own "center". Koreatown, then, becomes a center of economic and social importance to those who work and live within that area. Similarly, downtown is only a center to those who particularly identify with that area, travel into it, and work within it. Thus, there are many centers that exist simultaneously in the city, and which collaborate to make up the entirety of Los Angeles. To classify Los Angeles according to the Chicago School Model, in my opinion, attempts to constrain Los Angeles to a set of ill-fitting classifications and borders, and truly does not exemplify the non-traditional layout and infrastructure of the city.
While I may not entirely agree with Nicholas's use of the Chicago School to interpret Los Angeles, I highly commend the interpretation of the Rose Bowl in terms of the mobility of the city of Pasadena (and in the area of Los Angeles). Mobility, as we learned through our class discussions, is so crucial to success in Los Angeles. This city, which grew around the use of the automobile, is structured so that those without access to a vehicle are unable to reach most amenities and opportunities. Pasadena, it seems, is similar in that the city becomes "difficult to navigate" for residents when its mobility is constricted by the congestion caused by cars who come to the "city center" --the Rose Bowl. Thus, the city of Pasadena serves as an excellent example of the non-traditional layout of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area as it revolves around the car, and not the concentric ring.
Overall, I very much enjoyed Nicholas's post about Pasadena and the Rose Bowl. It provided much food for though, as truly few UCLA students seem to realize the overall complexity of the Rose Bowl as an organism whose organs (cars, football, residents) all must come together to create a fully functionally organism. In reference to this structural functionalism theory, we can see how understanding the workings of a place in relationship to its organs allows us to better understand the functioning of a city in terms of its parts, and subsequently the functioning of residents of the city in terms of their residence.