Firstly, what I felt the concept that the Downtown area is multicentered metropolitan region. In other word, it shows the facet of postsuburban spatial organization. It can be considered that the Downtown is"organized around many distinct, specialized centers rather than a traditional city center surrounded by industrial and residential areas". I strongly felt that there is no specific "core" in the Downtown. Rather, the town is complicated that it is organized around several types of cores. Take a look at these pictures.
From the photos, it can be acknowledged that the town is "the result of complex and weakly coordinated sets of conscious decisions by private entrepreneurs and many politicians who reflect their interests."
Secondly, I realized that the certain inequality exists in this town. What difference does difference make among people? Although there are several factors, I strongly felt that there is a gap in information. In other word, there is a concept of information capitalism in this town. It can be assumed that this "gives their industries greater leverage than their less technologically sophisticated precursors had". In many areas of Downtown, I see a lots of people who seem to not take advantage from this information capitalism. Take a look at these pictures.
Thirdly, certain consumer culture exists in the L.A. Downtown. Take a look at following pictures.
Lastly, cosmopolitanism stands as a one of the strong concepts in Downtown. I found a lots of billboards that are written in Korean, Chinese, Japanese, and Thailand. Why? Take a look at following pictures.
Going back from L.A. Downtown, I considered Robert E. Park's words, "The City is a mosaic of little worlds which touch but do not interpenetrate". I saw multicentered, information capitalism, consumer culture, and cosmopolitanism as the aspects of L.A. Downtown. The town was mosaic of little worlds, but did they interpenetrate? I say, No. There were several types of people in terms of ethnicity, estimated wealth, and estimated information. However, it is hard to say that they interpenetrate each other. Rather, I felt there are certain gaps between people in the Downtown.
Therefore, it can be considered that Robert E. Park's words are right this time.
Reference: City Reader: 399-344 (Ernest W.Burgess: "The Growth of the City"); Kling, Olin, and Poster: "The Emergence of Postsuburbia"
Reading through his entry Kei makes several valid points. Downtown, with all its majestic skyscrapers and important structures, seems to be overloaded with influential buildings to the point where there appears to be no cohesive center; It's just a bunch of small cores next to each other. Also, the people widely varied within the location: there were people there of all cultures, with corresponding billboards, ads and stores, and they lived at different levels of class in the economy (ranging from very poor to middle(ish) class).
返信削除However, instead of looking at Downtown from the perspective of Downtown, one could also take a look at Downtown from the perspective of the entire LA region. In this case, the form of the city begins to look like the Chicago/Manchester style circle with Downtown being the center of LA and all the mini enclaves (Thai Town, Little Tokyo, Little Armenia, Burbank) as the surrounding area (being a mix of industry and residential instead of two separate zones). This reinforces something I was discussing in my previous post, that the surrounding communities were brought together through class relations in that the workers congregated their quarters outside the "industrial" city center, and further separated into specialized mini cities due to common cultures. This difference in views makes me curious as to how many ways a city can be analyzed and perceived, and if there is even a CORRECT way to view them.
Hi Kei,
返信削除My name is King Wing and I enjoy reading your experience in Downtown Los Angeles. Downtown L.A. is definitely one of the most multi-centered metropolitan regions in L.A. I especially like the way you start your post, telling us how this area is like and how it reflects the facet of postsuburban spatial organization. I can't agree more with you. Since Downtown is formed by many small districts, it's not surprised that you see Downtown not having a specific and cohesive center because the place is simply too large that we can see different small cores between the blocks and buildings. Besides, cultural diversity also presents in this area; not only do people are varied from different cultures and speak different languages, the restaurants and stores in these small communities also reflect people's socioeconomic classes in the city.
Through reading the rest of your post, I also find that you mention some very interesting points, like how inequality is related to one's ability to access information to a extent. In other words, how this information gap affects and distinguishes the difference between the lower class people and the business men. Regarding to this point, you quote a statement, "It can be assumed that this 'gives their industries greater leverage than their less technologically sophisticated precursors had' to explain your idea and assumption on information capitalism in the town. However, I think it would be better if you could expand this point a little bit more with explainations. For example, after showing pictures in your blog, you could go further and conclude why "these group of people" are not privileged and receives less information that causing them to be separated from the others. Another same situation comes out when you quote "the result of complex and weakly coordinated sets of conscious decisions by private entrepreneurs and many politicians who reflect their interests" to explain your idea. This point is interesting as well, but again it would be good if you can further elaborate such as adding your comments or a few descriptions of the pictures so as to enrich your argument. With all the elaborations, I believe your argument would definitely be more precise and insightful. Lastly, I would say I really appreciate the way you incorporate as many as different concepts from the readings. It is not an easy task, but you do it quite well. Besides, I love the pictures that you have taken and also the way you highlight the words in color so that it makes it very clear to me what certain point or concept you are telling. This is pretty cool and reminds me perhaps I should do the same thing in my upcoming blogs :)
Overall, I find the arguments you make in the post are insightful and with more explanation, this would be a really great post! Reading your experience in Downtown also makes me understand more about the place and sort of reminding the question; what difference does difference makes? It seems that Downtown L.A is really a fantastic place that worth to walk around, explore and incorporate concepts that we have learned in class, and I can't wait to explore this place on my own in the coming weeks. Again, thanks for your great post and keep on! Have a nice weekend!
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.
返信削除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?