brainstorming continued
Malchik and Loerzel would agree that where you live certainly influences how you live. If you live in an area that is designated for cars, with big roads and more distance between everyday necessities, walking becomes obselete. Infrastructure that promotes interaction between people fosters a more connected community. Destroying this kind of infrastructure divides people from their neighbors and disconnects people from the humanity of others.
Malchik and The School of Life narrator would say that in order to reclaim streets, blocks, and cities for walking, we must allow for buildings to be condense and have a variation of road sizes. It is necessary to have large roads when considering the popularity of cars, but smaller roads are also necessary in order to bring people together. Infrastructure should also have limits and should be built to look beautiful so that people are stimulated by their environment rather than depressed by it.
Bucktown is a walkable neighborhood in Chicago. I would say it is walkable because it is a very charming area. Walking down the residential streets, pedestrians can romanticize their walks. Another good feature of Bucktown is the relativity of essential commodities to the residents. Churches, restaurants, markets, and all sorts of local businesses are only a short walk away from any given house in the neighborhood. This promotes the strengthening of neighborly interactions. (224)
When walking through a neighborhood in the city, nostalgia is common to feel, even in unfamiliar locations. We tend to think about the history of where we are compared to the present. DeCerteau speculates, “There is no place that is not haunted by many different spirits hidden there in silence, spirits can ‘invoke’ or not. Haunted places are the only ones people can live in” (108). People gravitate towards where life has once been because they want to experience their own version of this livelihood. Thus, the history of a place can dictate its present popularity.
There are many public spaces in the city of Chicago, yet not all of these places appeal to the senses. It takes more money to make something more beautiful. In reference to Parisian life, Solnit writes, “Idyllic spaces had been created for the urban rich—tree-lined promenades, semipublic gardens and parks. But these places that preceded the public park were anti-streets, segregated by class and disconnected from everyday life” (188). All citizens should have the right to exist in a beautiful place, not just those who can afford to live in a rich neighborhood. People gravitate towards living near beautiful surroundings, yet this beauty is out of budget for most people living in Chicago.
Socio-economic status often dictates where people reside, and how much they contribute financially to their own neighborhood. However, this affluence should not affect one’s right to the city. Hollis mentions a French philosopher’s thoughts on this subject: “Lefebvre argues that viewing those spaces as the theatre for everyday life changes our sense of belonging: being part of the city is no longer determined by ownership or wealth, but by participation. In consequence, our actions change and refine the city” (Hollis). No matter how rich or poor someone is, they still have the right to use the city and participate in it. Citizens have a right to exist within the space, even if it appears unconventional.
Works Cited
DeCerteau, Michel. “Chapter VII: Walking in the City.” The Practice of Everyday Life, translated by Steven Rendall, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1984.
Hollis, Leo. “Cities Belong to Us.” Edited by Marina Benjamin, Aeon, Aeon Magazine, 18 July 2013, https://aeon.co/essays/cities-thrive-when-public-space-is-open-to-all.
Solnit, Rebecca. “Chapter 11: The Solitary Stroller and the City.” Wanderlust: A History of Walking, Penguin Books, 2001.
