Blogging Social Difference in LA: Week 4

For a city that loves their cars so much they will sit in hours of traffic, it’s not surprising to read about the stigma of riding buses in Los Angeles. This city owes much of its current layout to the rise in popularity of the automobile and although its sprawling nature almost encourages and intensifies the need for a car, Jarrett Walker thinks otherwise. Walker, a public transit planning consultant and author of the blog Human Transit claims that the “regular grid of arterials” that link the many city centers is “the ideal infrastructure for that most efficient of transit structures: a grid network.” And it turns out that LA has one of the most accessible transit systems in the country. The Huffington Post reports that “99.1 percent of no-car households in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana area have access to public transit.”

So why is the idea of social stigma surrounding the use of public transportation so prevalent in Los Angeles? The LA Times discusses Jacquelyn Carr, an LA resident who started using the bus because she could no longer afford to lease her car. Carr saw this lifestyle shift as so monumental that she launched a blog, Snob On a Bus, which catalogs her travel experiences on public transportation. She told the LA Times that she felt as though she were “too good for the bus.” She claims, “there’s a social understanding and a construction around that if you take the bus, you take it because you don’t have money. There’s a social standard. Obviously I had bought into that.”

This is especially curious to me, coming from San Francisco and being an avid MUNI rider. In San Francisco riding public transportation (much like biking, walking, and composting) adds to your stripes as an intelligent urban inhabitant. Here in Los Angeles it seems that riding public transportation goes along with this “social standard” that Carr mentions and brands you as someone who cannot afford any other mode of transportation. Another point of interest is that this stigma only seems to be associated with bus travel and not with train travel. This is probably because, as the Atlantic Cities bluntly puts it, "train riders are richer and whiter." 

So, I decided this week I should experience LA’s public transportation system for myself. I wanted to ride both a train and a city bus because these modes of transportation offer different experiences, attract different riders, and have different social implications.

Union Station

I began downtown at Union Station which is the bustling crossroads of Metrolink, Amtrak, and many municipal bus and rail lines. Union Station, built in 1939 is full of marbled surfaces and terra cotta tiling. The building’s well preserved elegance offers a clean and comfortable place to sit and wait. I made my way to the platform where I waited for the purple line that was scheduled to arrive at 11:41am. As a transit rider who thinks of MUNI time much like the concept of dog years (where a minute in MUNI time is about two minutes in real time) I assumed the worst. However, I was pleasantly surprised when the purple line train pulled up at 11:41 like promised. Almost too civilized to be true.

I rode the purple line from Union Station to the last stop of Wilshire and Western. There were about twenty people on the car I was on and it was a smooth and quiet ride. After the 7th Street/Metro Center stop, which is a transfer point to a couple of other metro lines, there were just three others left on the train. There were clear announcements at each stop with a reminder in English and in Spanish that this was the purple line headed to Wilshire and Western. I got off at the last stop and headed upstairs where I hopped on the 720 towards Santa Monica to get back to my apartment in Westwood.

On the 720 Bus

The bus was definitely more crowded than the train had been but I was able to get a seat and it still was generally pretty clean (although I think BART has taught us that cloth seats are definitely not the most hygienic...). Just as I was wondering if this prompt service was an everyday occurrence in Los Angeles, or if I just had good transit juju today the bus got a flat tire. We all emptied out to wait for the next 720 which came in about 10 minutes.

Overall my experience on LA’s public transit system was pretty smooth and although comparisons have been made about the average race and income of bus riders compared to that of train riders, I didn’t notice a very big distinction. An article on the Atlantic Cities, “Race, Class and The Stigma of Riding the Bus in America” claims that 92% of bus riders in Los Angeles are “people of color” with an annual median household income of $12,000. Compared to the aforementioned "richer and whiter" demographic who rides the train it's easy to see where this bus stigma comes from. However, discussing it in terms of racial and income disparities will only continue the negative line of thought and ultimately justify the stigma.  

There are many ways in which our society views inequalities as a natural phenomenon - whether they are gender, class, or racial inequalities. This tendency to naturalize inequality stems from early theories of sociology like structural functionalism. This is a theoretical framework for society that is often described with the analogy of an organic being where a society would represent a body, social groups would represent organs, and individuals would represent cells. Every part has its own function and exists because it serves a specific purpose. This line of thinking cannot accurately represent a society because it justifies difference and repression. Jarrett Walker wrote a response piece to “Race, Class and The Stigma of Riding the Bus in America.” He points out that discussing the social stigma around bus travel really just, “tells everyone that an incurious aversion toward buses is a normal part of being a successful person.” Essentially, discussing unwarranted cultural stigmas just works to perpetuate those feelings and naturalize the racial and economic differences we see on public transportation. The idea that the bus system functions to serve low income citizens is flawed and will be a roadblock to a greater acceptance of public transportation as a distinguished and sustainable way to get around. 

Proof!

Blogging Social Difference in LA: Week 3

"The city is a mosaic of little worlds which touch but do not interpenetrate." - Robert Park

At the surface (and coming from someone who moved to LA a month ago) it seems that this statement holds a lot of truth. Los Angeles is a post-metropolis that has no one city center. Decentralized cities like this one have many segmented pieces and by consequence have less of a feeling of public solidarity or common good. Historically, city centers were sustained and accessed by public transportation, but since the rise of the automobile Los Angeles became more spread out and rendered the concept of centrality unimportant. People could (and still do) go anywhere they want to in the privacy of their own car, which works to further separate the communities that make up this city. Although automobility - the car as a technological extension of the body - and unrestrained car culture is still a facet of Los Angeles, the city's public transportation infrastructure has been progressing by leaps and bounds. 

Map of the seven projected subway stops of the Purple Line extension
From the New York Times

In 2008 the City of Los Angeles passed Measure R, which is a (voter approved!) half-cent sales tax that is estimated to generate $40 billion for transit. Measure J, a proposed 30 year extension of this half-cent tax was just approved for the November ballot. The potential proceeds from Measure J would speed up the extension of the Purple line (aka the Subway to the Sea) which would make it considerably easier for those on the west side of Los Angeles to get around without a car. However, the plan of westward expansion involves tunneling under Beverly Hills High School, which has caused quite a stir with Beverly Hills residents. The Parent Teacher Association of Beverly Hills High School claims that tunneling under the school will be unsafe and put the students at risk. The MTA has done numerous studies, like the Tunneling Safety Report which was released in 2011 and outlines safe ways to complete the project with its projected route under the high school.  

Today I visited the high school and the surrounding area of Beverly Hills with this controversy in mind. Beverly Hills is famed for its wealth and privilege and when walking around the neighborhood, it definitely feels like a world of its own - one of the isolated pieces in the mosaic that makes this city. The streets are wide, many newly paved. The residential streets are lined with trees, manicured lawns, and many luxury cars. Walking around the school during the middle of the day, there were very few people around except a security guard patrolling in a golf cart (which I have never seen at a public school before). Painted on the side of the school there was a big blue ribbon specifying that it was a "Blue Ribbon School of Excellence." The surrounding area had a little more action, with visitors on Rodeo drive and lunchers sitting outside of the many cafes and restaurants lining Beverly Drive. According to a neighborhood profile from the LA Times, the residents of Beverly Hills are 87.5% white. Most of the ethnic diversity that I observed (which almost seems too cliche to be true) was a hispanic woman walking two dogs and a couple of groups of hispanic men doing yard work and some construction work on a few buildings.

While walking around this finely manicured neighborhood and thinking about the strong opposition to the subway under the high school it is hard not to think about the socio-economic status of the Beverly Hills residents compared to the status of those who ride the trains in Los Angeles. According to that same neighborhood profile from the LA Times, the median household income for Beverly Hills is $169,282, while an article on the Atlantic states that the median household income of train riders is $26,250. On the surface it's easy to think that residents of Beverly Hills want to keep their oasis of wealth and privilege inaccessible and sheltered from those who ride public transportation. While this was my first instinct, the theory is an unfair assumption. It seems that most residents are in favor of the subway extension but just opposed to the path it will take under the high school. In addition to the controversy that this rail extension has produced, it has also brought about some highly entertaining YouTube videos from both parties. The Parent Teachers Association of Beverly Hills High School made this dramatic video that details why they are opposed to the plan.

And here is a video in support of Metro's expansion plan, which is a satire that mocks the Beverly Hills stance.

David Sibley, author of "Mapping the Pure and the Defiled" discusses object relation theory, which is the process of creating a positive self identity by excluding others. By putting up boundaries, whether physical, social, or psychological, the "other" is kept away. This language is perhaps a bit extreme in the context of Beverly Hills and mass transit, but the new subway could be seen as a physical fracture of some of the neighborhood's social boundaries. While this particular issue involves political, fiscal, and environmental factors, it seems to be deeply rooted in social difference as well. Beverly Hills is a community that is able to harness their collective resource of wealth to combat the MTA's plan in costly court hearings. If the purple line were planned to go under a different school in a different neighborhood I'm not sure we would see such a drawn out and publicized conflict. While most residents in Beverly Hills are in favor of the subway extension it seems like there is a bit of a not-in-my-backyard attitude when it comes down to the actual construction of the subway.

Hopefully the increase in public transportation will change the way people navigate the city and break some of the spatial and social boundaries that keep the communities of Los Angeles isolated. 

Blogging Social Difference in LA: Week 2

When imagining the core of a city, we all have expectations of what that area should posses. A downtown will have high-rise office buildings, subway stations, art museums, theaters, luxury hotels (and maybe a few business professionals jetting to the closest Starbucks). Downtown should be vibrant. It should attract visitors from the region and elsewhere. It should be the loud clanging heart of the city. As vivacious as this sounds, there is also the coexistence of homelessness and low-income housing in underdeveloped areas. This juxtaposition is especially pronounced in downtown L.A. because the area houses so many vastly different communities.

Ernest W. Burgess, an urban sociologist, created a land use model that describes the expansion of a city starting at the core and moving outward in concentric rings. Although this model is perhaps a product of its time, and not wholly applicable to the city of Los Angeles, I ventured downtown to consider how the physical development of the area has influenced the social organization of its residents.

Entrance to the Chester Williams Building being restored

I began in the financial district, on Fourth and Flower. Arriving mid-day, I navigated the streets with many a suited professional out on their lunch break. There seemed to be your usual mix of large contemporary skyscrapers as well as stately, historic office  buildings. I continued to wend my way through the historic core, trying to get a feel for the area. Walking southeast along Fifth, I stumbled upon the Chester Williams Building on Fifth and Broadway. This is an ornately decorated historic office building that has been repurposed into a mixed-use building with 88 residential units for rent upstairs and a Walgreens that will soon move in on the ground floor. I acquired a form for potential renters with leasing information for the loft-style units, which are starting at about $2,000 per month for a one bedroom apartment.  

After leaving the building I turned to continue down Fifth. Very abruptly the scenery and demographic changed and soon after that I was in an unexpectedly seedy neighborhood. Although I was just one block away from the Chester Williams building I knew this was not the demographic who would be occupying those newly renovated units. I continued walking for a couple blocks when an older black man who had been walking ahead of me turned and in a concerned manner asked just how far I intended to keep walking in this direction. I took this as a gentle hint and turned around to head back to the clean, wide streets of the financial district.

The San Fernando Building - one of the first adaptive reuse
projects to be completed in downtown LA

I then walked over to the Roosevelt Lofts on Seventh and Flower. This large stone structure was built in 1926 and now holds 222 lofts. Upon further research I learned from la.curbed.com that not only do some of these units rent for $9,000 but they have attracted renters like actor David Arquette and LA Laker Lamar Odom. Next I saw the San Fernando Building, which was one of the first historic bank buildings in the area to be converted into residential units. Two more that I did not get to see were the Title Insurance Building with 250 residential units, and the Hellman Building with 212 units. 

Adaptive reuse projects like the ones that I saw today are a ubiquitous facet of downtown Los Angeles. The city passed the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance in 1999 which makes it easier for developers to turn unused commercial or office space into residential units. According to a 2011 study on ladowntownnews.com, “the community now has 29,429 apartments and condominiums and 46,400 residents. In 1999, before the ordinance, there were about 18,000 inhabitants and 11,626 residential units in Downtown.” 

There are many upsides to adaptive reuse projects. Redevelopment preserves historic buildings and cuts down costs and material consumption by using an already existing building. These adaptive reuse buildings are allowing people to inhabit the same area they work in and can create a more sustainable, less car-dependent community. It can also revitalize some not so nice or unsafe neighborhoods. However, this revitalization also brings higher rents, and almost always displacement of the area’s original residents. In Burgess’ discussion of the growth of a city he notes that as a city expands it is not just the physical growth, but “a process of distribution takes place which sifts and sorts and relocates individuals and groups by residence and occupation.” What may have been "sifting and sorting" in Burgess' time is now the hot-button issue of gentrification.

Luckily the downtown area has many community activist groups like The Figueroa Corridor Coalition for Economic Justice (FCCEJ) which provides a community voice for local developments. "In the Face of Gentrification" found on urban.org there is a detailed case study of downtown's Figueroa Corridor. The article describes how in 2001 the FCCEJ made an agreement with the LA Arena Land Company (owners of the Staples Center) which required the developers to include "living wage and union jobs, affordable housing, local hiring" and significant improvements to the area before further expansion could take place. The Esparanza Community Housing Corporation, another advocate group, played a large role in the development of the Housing Trust Fund which provides money for affordable housing developments. 

This tension between these advocate groups and developers seem to represent the tension between the vastly different social groups in downtown LA. While recent development projects have brought new residents to the area along with new shops and businesses, they have also forced many residents out of their homes. After being downtown and seeing the great inequalities of the area's inhabitants it feels callous to hear Burgess describe this as merely the natural process of expansion and contraction of a city. 

Blogging Social Difference in LA: Week 1

Robert Park, famous urban sociologist stated, “The City is a mosaic of little worlds which touch but do not interpenetrate.” Whether this city is a mosaic or a melting pot, I will be exploring social difference in the Los Angeles Metropolitan area with this thought in mind. I have had an ongoing fascination with urban geography because of the diverse population that cities attract, and the way people interact with the urban environments that they inhabit. Although cities provide a great platform for social diversity, social inequality is an unfortunate facet of any major city. Having moved to Los Angeles just a couple of weeks ago, I am still new to the fabric of this particular metropolis, but I do know that social inequality, and by consequence social tension plays a role in the structure of any urban setting. I look forward to exploring the city and observing the various cultural groups and built environments that make up the Los Angles area.