Blogging Social Difference in L.A.: Week 9

For my last post exploring a part of Los Angeles, I wanted to ride public transportation in the city to get a feel for what it is like, study the infrastructure that makes up the system, and see the people who ride it on a regular basis. Riding the bus from UCLA to somewhere could've worked, but I was curious to learn more about the light-rail and subway system that is being expanded in the city, that runs on a dedicated route that is unaffected by traffic. In my opinion, these are the only viable public transportation options that can one day lead to decreasing traffic on the congested freeways of L.A. Buses only add to the traffic and run just as slow if not slower (to stop for passengers) than a car, so I was curious to see how well the light-rail system, specifically the Expo Line from Culver City to Downtown measures up to the three variables that people use in their transportation decision: cost, time, and convenience. I will discuss these three points along with the interesting observations and connections to some lecture and reading points that we delved into throughout the course.

I took my trip on a Saturday during the early afternoon. I left my apartment shortly after noon, and it took me about 15 minutes to get to the La Cienega/Jefferson station in Culver City (the 2nd farthest west station on the Expo Line). After parking there (which was free) I went to the kiosk to buy a ticket. After a few minutes of messing with the machine, which was not terribly user friendly, I realized it would not let me just buy a ticket, but that I would instead have to purchase a Transit Access Pass (TAP) Pass that would cost me an extra $1. Yes it is a Transit Access Pass Pass, the naming scheme was not well thought through. As I got ready to buy the pass and put money on it, I looked for where it told me the cost of fare, but that was not listed anywhere. So I put $3 on, hoping my travel wouldn't cost more but prepared to load more if I needed.

Then I turned to go up the stairs to the track, and at the foot of the stairs were to electronic columns, like shorter metal detectors. It was here you scanned your pass pass to go up to the track, but there was no enforcement for it. No bar that held you back if you did not scan, no detector that noticed someone walking through without scanning, not even a security camera around looking to see a violator. The detector was not even flush with the stairs, so you could technically just go in between and never even touch the scanner. I thought to myself why did I even bother paying if there was no accountability, and its clear everyone else had thought the same thing and just moved along. No one else except me scanned my pass charging me an apparent $1.50 as shown on the screen, and then I walked up to the track.

Already, I was less than impressed by this "new" rail line that was suppose to be part of L.A.'s transportation future. I waited just a minute till the train pulled up heading east towards downtown and I hopped on the train.

I marked the departure at 12:35pm from the station, curious to see how long it would take to get to downtown. The train was lightly filled, only seven people initially in my car of which the train was made up of probably eight cars. There were people of varying ethnicity (although became predominantly Black and Latino as the trip went on) and gender, although they looked to be mostly under 30 or over 55. The travelers were either too young to be working, were commuting to their job (not career), or were retired and going somewhere.

The train went east following Exposition Blvd and parallel with I-10, with more people hopping on as the train moved, with some leaving as well. By 12:48pm we reached the Expo/Vermont station which was advertised as a stop point for the natural history museum and L.A. Coliseum, a very quick 13 minute trip that could save you the $10-$20 of parking for the museum or football game. By 12:56pm we arrived at the Pico Station which advertised as the stop point for the Staples Center and L.A. Convention Center. I got off here to turn back and realized that I was very close to both of those destinations, as shown in the photos below.

Finally I hopped back on the train and took it back west toward Culver City. As I was boarding, an unshaven African-American man wearing sweats in his mid 20s carrying a baby came up to me and sketchily asked for my phone to make a call. I figured he couldn't take it and go anywhere being on the train, so I offered and of course he did not steal it, but I felt guilty for doing so. It wasn't that he was Black that took me off guard, it was how he acted and carried his child that worried me whether or not he would. It's part of a greater insecurity I think I had being on the light-rail, an unknown mode of travel, and meeting new people who do not give off the same impression as a college student. I think it is this same insecurity that drives many in L.A. to separate themselves from the rest of the city, as talked about in the Massey and Denton article on racial segregation. They talk about white residents who can "put up with" a set amount of black residents until they want to move out of fear. I think I was a bit guilty of that mindset, comfortable with some different people but as soon as more came and they talked to me, I grew uncomfortable and assumed the worse. It's a sobering reminder that the concept of racial/ethnic/class/cultural segregation is a real thing that we consciously realize or sub-consciously do without knowing.

Now regarding the light-rail, while useful in maybe saving money in parking when going to a football game at the Coliseum, it fails on the all three aspects. I still need a car that costs money to insure and pay for gas to go to the station, unless I take an 60 minute bus ride to the station. Then I pay $1.50 each way, with an additional 21 minutes to the Pico station. It also limits the places I can go, having to walk in between stations to anywhere else I would want to go. In short, looking at this in a very Neo-liberal mentality, it does not make economic sense. Why would someone waste their time and lose the convenience of a car to save a few bucks? A Neo-liberal critique would be that the city of Los Angeles is wasting resources trying to promote the subway system and grow it by charging everyone increased sales tax. And from that perspective it's true, why invest money in public transportation when you should just charge for the use of roads we have, and if you cannot afford it then tough luck.

What I have found is that Neo-liberals sometimes lack the foresight to see the benefits in long-term investment in a system or network. Neo-liberals probably would not have supported the Interstate Highway system, seeing that as over spending by the government to prop up businesses and individuals who couldn't individually pay to build the roads themselves. But that is what government can sometimes do, collect taxes to invest in a system that directly benefits some but can indirectly benefit all. The Interstate system is only strong because you can take a truck from the Port of Long Beach and drive it to Denver, Colorado to deliver goods. It does not suddenly end when the L.A. area does, it connects all of the nation allowing for the great movement of people and goods. That same can be said for the future of the subway system, it will only be as strong as the amount of people and places it provides access to. If it stays small, no one will ever ride in the numbers needed to justify. But if people can one day actually not need a car like in a city like New York and take effective public transportation everywhere it can work. Facebook is silly with one person on, but if hundreds of millions of people are on there and you can use it to add anyone you might know from school or work, there is strength in that; there is strength in a system and sometimes an upfront cost that does not immediately make economic sense is needed.

This is where I cannot see the Neo-liberal city lasting, if everyone is looking out for themselves and never willing to make larger investments, what is the point in being part of a city?

Blogging Social Difference in L.A.: Week 8

For this week, I took a driving tour of the Brentwood/East Santa Monica areas, a region that is so close to UCLA but often overlooked I feel by many students that live here. My trip was in the evening and was a unique opportunity to see the area on a Sunday and what people are doing on a typical day in the evening.

My journey started down Wilshire Blvd heading west, which is immediately greeted by construction on the 405 that we all are familiar with. The construction is taking place on no average street though, the 405 is the most traveled freeway in the United States and Wilshire Blvd is one of the busiest streets in all of Los Angeles, a potent combination which has caused a lot of traffic and delays for people in the area.

Proceeding down Wilshire is the main stretch on the westside which is filled with billboards, flashing lights, shop fronts, multi-story office buildings, and lots of people driving and walking around. Even for a Sunday evening, the area is incredibly busy and alive with people everywhere.
The diversity is amazing with people of all ages and ethnicities in the cars, on the sidewalks, and in the restaurants. The types of businesses are also in great variety with your high-end office tower to McDonalds, a nail salon, and a pizzeria (all pictured).

I made a right turn on 14th street and took that up to San Vicente, with a drastic change in scenery happening all around me. From the hustle and bustle of Wilshire came the calm, quiet, and relatively dark residential neighborhoods beyond. Especially on a small side street, it was clear the only people on the street were going to or from their home or visiting. Few people were walking around the streets which were lined with mostly 2-story single family homes and multiple cars parked out front. Home ownership (as shown in a map further down) is very high in this area and only increases as you go north on these residential streets.

I then proceeded and took a right turn down San Vicente, which is a major street in the area but one more for movement within the region as opposed to moving through like Wilshire. The center is divided with a green strip of grass and trees that loom over the street. While sidewalks exist, they are empty except for a few joggers who are there for a workout as opposed to going somewhere specific for a service. Below is a picture of the avenue, and while blurry, shows how empty and dark it is. This boulevard is meant for people to use as a means to get around the neighborhood, not for a stroll down the lane.

There are small shopping centers with a store or two, located in patches along the avenue, which house very upscale boutiques, restaurants, or speciality shops that cater to the very different clientele that live in this area. This is very different than the type of businesses you will find on Wilshire. There are no high density buildings, fast food restaurants, or neon signs here.

The change in businesses is not by accident, there is a clear income and race difference between the area surrounding Wilshire and that of San Vicente. The SimplyMap maps below show that as you move farther north from Wilshire, the population becomes whiter and wealthier. Another map below shows trends in home ownership as well, displaying the change in residents as mentioned earlier.

My drive took me back east where I stopped for gas since I was incredibly low, and found a station that was incredibly expensive. I put in $15 just out of need, only to drive down a few more blocks into Brentwood and find gas much cheaper. At first I was just upset by this, but then thought about it and it made sense. Gas stations can charge more in nicer neighborhoods and although Brentwood is hardly a low class neighborhood, it is not as wealthy as the areas west of it, from looking at the map.

Finally, San Vicente took me back to Wilshire Blvd where I continued on that back to Westwood, with its high rise buildings and lower income populations (aka students). The diversity of wealth and race is incredible for such a small area on the westside, and can mean a lot of cultural collision as a result.

The wealthier neighborhoods I passed through had a lot more vegetation, green spaces, parks, lawns, and trees, a sign of how much nicer this area is than that of Wilshire Blvd with hardly any vegetation. Nature and its presence in a controlled environment is highly sought after and considered aesthetically pleasing.

The race divide is also something of note, as some areas show in the map are entirely white, a rare occurrence seen in Los Angeles, but maintained in certain pockets. In the Massey and Denton article, they discuss that racial segregation can be caused by economic factors, urban structure, and neighborhood preferences. Clearly, whites have shown a preference for this area and been willing to pay the price to live here, keeping other poorer groups out simply through pricing.

There is no clear cut answer for how this divide and diversity has developed, but it is something definitely worth looking into more.

Blogging Social Difference in L.A.: Week 7

For this weeks post, I chose to write a response to Amanda Young's post on urban sprawl. Her URL is as follows: http://exploremetro.blogspot.com/2012/11/blogging-social-difference-week-5.html?showComment=1353118646861#c3749311366888797958

Hi Amanda, I thought your article on Redlands was an enjoyable and connected well to a continuing theme of urban sprawl and expansion.

A main theme that is apparent is consumerism, it dictates so much of the development it seems, especially regarding these shopping centers that act as community centers as well. With great suburban growth comes a lot of people who are brought in from various parts of the nation and world with different experiences and cultures. But what seems to bring all people together is shopping and buying stuff. People have different religions so a church or synagogue does not suffice, sports are only an interest of some so a stadium or arena not as much, but a shopping center is open to anyone who can get there. And while it costs money for people to shop there, just to meet and walk around costs nothing.

Going off what a lot of people have said, I think there is something very interesting about the nuclear family component to this as well. Not just random people but families come to spend time together shopping, it replaces so many other opportunities or fills a void many have who cannot relate to one another with other institutions. For all we hate consumerism, a mother and daughter shopping together for clothes can be part of a healthy family relationship as opposed to no time together at all.

Finally, commenting on the first quote of Olin, Kling, and Poster, where they discuss suburbs being "socially varied", areas like Redlands and many others show this at work but not in what I think they mean to say. The impression they give is of areas where races and ethncities and social classes mix in readily whether they like it or not, creating neighborhoods and cities that are extremely diverse. One only needs to look at Redlands to see a city predominantly white, Monterey Park predominantly Asian, and South Gate predominantly Latino. While many people have come in to make these suburbs of a city, they have isolated themselves and kept each other apart. They shop at different places and congregate in different areas, much like what we see in Citrus Plaza.

Great article Amanda, thanks!

-Nick

Blogging Social Difference in L.A.: Week 6

After having two posts about others, I thought it was time for me to venture out myself and explore a little bit of the city myself and write. In light of rivalry week coming up soon and the big game, I felt an interest to go explore the area around USC, which has a really interesting history in itself I wanted to learn more about and see. In particular, I wanted to take a look at the Historic West Adams District that lies north and west of the university.

Driving east on the 10, I exited Vermont going south right into the heart of the district an area that is one of the oldest in Los Angeles. Some of the homes and businesses still have a unique look to them that can only be described as "L.A." around the 30s and 40s. Palm trees surround the buildings with a certain carelessness yet also refinement that adds to temple-like style of some buildings. The Shriner Auditorium north of campus opitimizes this as shown below.

This area from its infancies then grew into a solid middle class neighborhood throughout the 40s and 50s as the city expanded and was part of the effort to make this area around USC a beautiful place to live and work for all people. As time went on though, this area quickly became a by gone neighborhood that was widely abandoned as mostly white residents were replaced with less wealthy black and latino ones who were moving into the area. Race was not what changed the neighborhood into an undesirable one, it was the urban problems of the 60s and 70s that plagued all races in many cities. Crime rose, demographics changed, and the "nice" neighborhood with its historic buildings were replaced with tenement housing and blight brought about by the change. With the freeways, people could also move out of the areas around downtown and commute in for work and go back to other "nicer" areas on the westside or the valley. This reminds me much of what was the case in Engel's "The Great Towns" piece describing the thoroughfares that bypassed undesirable parts of the city of Manchester. West Adams and the Figueroa Corridor were now these low-income areas that were being passed.

Today, while improvements have been made, like efforts to remember the Historic West Adams district with signs or posters advertising the Figueroa Corridor adjacent to it have tried to help bring about some history to a neighborhood that has changed along with Los Angeles.

Exposition Park directly to the south has been growing and with the new light rail line has brought new faces and opportunities as people come to visit the L.A. Coliseum and California Science Center. I'll be writing about that in the coming weeks as well for my public transportation piece.

While the area around USC has changed, the university has not though and is still a well-thought of institution with great programs and a lot of money that support it still. While many would wish the surrounding area was different, it is not, and USC has responded in trying to strike a balance of being involved in the community yet also "protecting" its students from lies around. There a police and rent-a-cops who patrol the campus and stop those who look like they shouldn't be there, a mini sanctuary from the rest of Los Angeles. It reminds of a piece by Mike Davis called "The City of Quartz" which discusses US cities and in particular L.A. where little pockets of neighborhoods and areas seal themselves off from the rest of the city. They build big walls or security systems or hire many security guards to watch over. It's a very interesting dynamic to see in such a bustling part of the city.

On my way out to the freeway, I saw the USC shuttle that takes students from housing outside the area and to the university, a reminder again of the predicament that a wealthy private school like USC faces everyday.

Blogging Social Difference in L.A.: Week 5

Here is my reply to a fellow classmates piece on Sunset Blvd: http://streetsignsucla.blogspot.com/2012/11/blogging-social-difference-in-la-week-5.html?showComment=1351911430332#c7142783756582570975


Hi Brandon,

Really interesting trip you took down Sunset and back to Downtown Los Angeles. You hit on some very interesting points that I think are worth re-mentioning and working into a little bit, mostly notably the idea of pushing “foreign” or “undesirable” people out of a community and keeping it that way.

While you didn’t mean to ride west on the bus, I think it made for a really interesting look at how the development of Sunset Blvd goes from the coast all the way to downtown, and how it varies throughout the trip. In some areas (mostly the wealthy ones) there are no sidewalks along this main thorough fare, while in other parts like Hollywood, there are as a way for people to walk around locally. I think this development can be viewed in two ways.

First, is the idea you discussed earlier and what Sibley talks about, in an effort by cities to keep people out and limit access, especially by walking. This is a notable theme in a popular piece by Mike Davis called “City of Quartz” which discusses this phenomenon especially in L.A. around the times of the major race riots in the early 90s. Groups of people go through sometimes extreme measures to insulate themselves and prevent from those unknown to enter and we definitely see that on Sunset as this street that connects large parts of L.A. is really only drivable the whole way through. For pure safety reasons, notwithstanding social ones, walking on Sunset with no sidewalks and its curvy roads is a death trap for the pedestrian.

There is another lens that the development of Sunset can be viewed through, and that’s its purpose. For some neighborhoods, usually the residential heavy ones, it just a main road that allows you to elsewhere in the road system, it is not a place to stroll along as distances from a home to any place of utility are too far for the common Angeleno to brave. But in Hollywood, there are sidewalks as it becomes denser and people want to move from a home or apt to shop or restaurant without having to necessarily drive. Whether the local retail determined Sunset Blvd here or vice versa, there is no doubt that it exists for a reason outside of social exclusion, which I think, is a point worth looking into more.

Great piece once again,

Nick