CHA: Relocation vs. Survival

      When I was a young girl I lived in the projects (CHA) on the south side near Trumbull Park. I remember that all of the low and high-rises were built exactly the same. No matter what friend's house I would go to nothing was different. It's a little strange to think that ALL of the apartments had the same design. However, this reminds me what we learned in terms of Production of Space. By making standardized productions or homogeneous structures it creates more exchange and efficiency. For example, it is easier to tear down and rebuild these types of buildings than to remove a building that has history or real significance to its name.

We had a large street that divided the apartments on one side from the other. This street was not used for our usual transportation. It was a random street that had an unknown purpose. It only divided one side from the other. The front doors of the apartments lead to this street while the back doors would actually lead to "society." I never understood why they were built this way. I guess it was to keep the true faces of the project's culture hidden so that those who would drive past the neighborhood wouldn't see. As a young girl I used to think that the road was there to allow the kids to play, like a playground, or for that yearning feeling of community. The only cars that I remember passing on the street were the police cars. The police cars would make their rounds from time to time in order to regulate the neighborhood. Before I left Trumbull Park at age six to my boarding school in aurora my mother was debating on one of the most important decision of her and our families life. This is all new to my ears and I hope you enjoy our story and experience living through Chicago Housing Authority. 

Our story:

 My mother, like most residents living in our neighborhood at the time, was a young black single parent. We were living off of state money to get by. Such as: welfare and food stamps. She was working two jobs and had four children to take care of. At this time our rent was only $65. (I know crazy!) However, when my mother found a better paying job at Sprint, the state took away most of her aid she was receiving. Therefore, our rent went from $65 to nearly $800 a month.  We weren't given a letter in which we were told to move out; but they might as well had! You would think that once these single parent household received a good paying job the CHA and state would allow them a grace period. This grace period would provide them a chance to save their new allowance in order to transition to better housing and living conditions. My mother left our apartment because it was cheaper to live somewhere else then in this low income housing. "Make Sense?" 

My Mother's Thoughts:

 "When people are told that their housing locations are being torn down they help you find a place to live and help you pay your rent. However, there are restrictions on where you could go for new low-income housing and you must find it yourself.  This process is not easy at all. You must file paperwork and be put on a list for housing. If you do not fit the requirements or are placed low on the list you may never be accepted for this specific type of housing. For those who are so called lucky and are accepted for new housing, still find themselves in a very difficult position. Not only are they relocated but they were most likely placed in a new suburb CHA housing. I definitely agree with the IDEA of mixing different social classes into a neighborhood. I believe the diversity is necessary and should be demanded. However, the neighborhood must be suitable for each and every class. The relocated residents can't afford to live in these suburbs. They now have housing, but lack income and transportation. Both of these are essential for creating any type of comfortable living experiences. To find a job you need transportation and most of the residents don't own a car and rely heavily on public transit. Public transit is not very common in the suburbs. Without transportation the new residents can't find jobs, and without a job they have little or no income for basic necessities. These people are put in a place where it is impossible to survive!"

Playing the Game "Gold Coast"

       As we learned in class the Gold coast used to be one of the wealthiest zip codes. Not only did those who lived there have money, but also had to prove their standings in many different ways. The way that they would prove their power and prestige would be by playing "the game." I love this metaphor because it makes perfect sense. Men and woman had specific roles and rules that they had to abide by in order to continue to be a part of the Gold Coast gang or elite game. The book list a variety of different rules that the woman had to understand and do in order to be accepted. Here is the woman's calendar  of activities:

Hairdresser-once or twice a week
Manicure-once or twice a week
massage-once a week
shopping-every few days:
ballet class, to preserve the figure-once a week
french class, group of six, at a friends house- once a week
lectures-at the playhouse or club
club meetings-tea & luncheon, each meeting monthly

One ridiculous thing that the woman also had to do was not to carry an umbrella because it would mean a financial weakness. If it were raining they should have enough money to get a cab or ride. The women also needed a  social secretary. This social secretary was needed to keep the woman informed on social activities and gossip so that they may always be informed about what is going on in The Game.

Does the game seem a little crazy to you or does it remind you of how some of our perceptions of the wealthy today are?  I do believe that this game is really ridiculous. However, when I think of our elite today I still think of them playing this game. They join clubs, put their kids in specific clubs and schools, pay to be a part of a country club where they are all able to meet, gossip, and enjoy activities together. The Game sounds a little familiar to me still to this day. Correct me if i'm mistaken?!

The Plan of Chicago: parks importance/movement

"Density of population beyond a certain point results in disorder, vice, and disease, and thereby becomes the greatest menace to the well-being of the city itself. Natural scenery, on the other hand, furnishes the contrasting element to the artificiality of the city, a refuge, where mind and body are restored to a normal condition, and we are enabled to take up the burden of life in our crowded streets and endless stretches of buildings with renewed vigor and hopefulness." pg101

In our last class we talked about The Plan of Chicago and the urban parks and playground movement. The question of whether parks are a necessity to urban life was put to the test. Some disagreed and believed that it is not so significant that its absence would create disorder or affect residents so drastically as mentioned in the above quote. However, I argued that I believe it is essential to have some sort of refuge whether it is artificial, man-made, or natural. Of course it is difficult to come to a consensus because we do possess these sites and are unaware of how living without them would truly change or affect our views.

So why do I agree with the above quote? As an environmental studies minor this topic has been a huge debate in my environmental courses. Parks, playgrounds, open fields, or any space that reminds us of a comfortable natural surrounding tends to have a positive affect on us. I believe that these places remind us of being somewhere else away from our worries, work, and the fast paced clock that we live by. I know we have all walked on the streets of downtown Chicago. Look back to a day when we took a tour as a class. Do you remember the crowded sidewalks, countless promoters trying to get your attention, the struggle to get to the other side of a street before the light changes, and people pushing beside you on foot, bikes, or skates? It's definitely a rush that you must be ready and understanding to. Now try to look back to those very few areas that were just an open space filled with people sitting, talking, reading, sleeping...relaxing. These place are not hidden, instead they are right in the middle of that fast paced commotion I just described. However, the mood is completely different. It is inviting, warm, and looks enjoyable. I tried to imagine the city without those few locations. If I only saw the tall metal, brick, or stone buildings surrounded with crowded streets and sidewalks that offer NO place for a breath from that rush I think my whole attitude towards the city would change. Everyone needs a place, that isn't their home, where they can take a break from the city life. Even if you never decide that you will use those parks or open spaces you at least have that option to take on that opportunity.  :)

Urbanism As A Way Of Life- Sheeba Mays

   Wirth described urbanism as a way of life that consist of many characteristics. Those characteristics were: a large and dense area with permanent settlements of heterogeneous groups. Do I believe that this still holds true today? I think it depends on everyone's personal perception of urbanism. I do agree that urban life is dense and is settled with a large group of heterogeneous residents. However, when I think of the city I do not see a large area. Instead I only think of the downtown area or the core commercial/work area for a particular location. In those specific spaces it is heavily dense and packed with residents,workers, tourists, and commuters. Therefore, I do agree with most of his characteristics in terms of density and settlements of heterogeneous groups. 
I can definitely argue that there are some essential features within city living that Wirth has left out.
    
     The first feature that I believe is very essential to note is the  fast pace environment in the city. With the dense population and a variety of people flowing in the city streets things can get very crowded and overwhelming for someone who is not use to that type of organized chaos. The environment is fast pace because of the congestion and the fact that there are so many people with their own agendas. For example: people on their way to work in cars, trains, buses or even just tourists trying to find a specific restaurant or architectural monument can all make the environment seem rushed. 
      The second and last essential feature that Wirth didn't mention is the spatial structure of cities. City spatial structure is almost always different than that of suburbia's spatial structure. What I mean by spatial structure is the level of changes in culture, environment, and social-class within a neighborhood or even a block. The example we used in class was Chicago city blocks vs. Naperville blocks. When in Naperville you can walk a few blocks or even drive a few miles from your location and still see almost the same environment. However, in the city you can walk a block and be in a completely different environment. The cultures, social-class, and physical settings can change drastically just in a few steps. 


    I really enjoyed this reading because it got me thinking about the differences of city and suburban life. Because I have experience being a resident in both locations it is great to actually be able to sit down and compare the two lifestyles. Though I did not agree with everything Wirth had to say I was able to see that there are many different viewpoints of urbanism as a way of life.