When I was reading the Don Mitchell article about People’s
Park it reminded me of something that happened in my community (Shaker Heights,
OH) in the 60s. During the time of suburbanization, massive highway systems
were built and they wanted to build one through Shaker Heights. The community was outraged because the
highway would go through an area that is now the Shaker Nature Center.
 |
| A map showing where the highway would have been in relation to the nature center |
The highway would
have taken away an area that remained undeveloped, a place where people are
free to gather. Community members gathered together to oppose the construction
of the freeway. It wasn’t until 1970 that the city canceled the highway plans
due to the pressure the community put on the government to not build it. Now
this open space is a preserved area and is home to the Nature Center where you
can learn about the environment and more about the species that live in the
area.
I feel as though this scenario relates to People’s Park
because people gathered in the 60s to preserve the area for the people, however
when they had to defend the area later on, they were not successful. The people
protesting the building of the highway in Shaker were women of the community as
well as some affluent community members. I think the success of a protest
really depends on who is involved in it as well as who it is about. For
instance, in the article it discusses the fact that homeless people occupy the
park at times, and crime occurs in the park as well. Public officials would not
see the benefit in preserving this area because the activities that occur in
the park are not seen as acceptable conduct in a public space. This is one of
the reasons why the protest was not successful.
 |
| Inside the Nature Center |
This relates back to the Shaker Heights protest of the
highway because people were seeking to preserve an area that did not have a
history of crime or undesirable activity. This area was just a plot of green
space in a world of sidewalks, streets, and many homes. It also helped that
many people protesting were middle-class/upper-class community members who had
an influence on the community and within the city government. This shows how
who is involved in a protest really makes a difference in the success of it.
 |
| Nature Center |
These scenarios bring up a few questions, who is the community really for when there are only a select
few whose concerns about or wants for the community are heard. The People’s
Park was taken over due to the fact certain people within the community did not
feel welcome or safe in the park. What about the people who felt safe in the
park or used that space? Where do they go, and why aren’t their wants for the
community taken into serious consideration?
 |
| Preserved area around the Nature Center |
I enjoyed this post, and me being a lover of nature and green space, I'm glad to see that the protests won out. I found it interesting though to see how you compared the protesters of this highway as being upper and middle class where as the protesters of the Mitchell article were poor and lower class. Sad to see, really, how something as that can make such a huge impact.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point that a successful protest is dependent on who is involved. Protesting seems to be an accessible way for all members of the community to take action, yet power relations are still extremely relevant. I think you're right--had there been a homeless population protesting the cause it wouldn't have been so successful. Nature preservation is a a priority so long as wealthy suburbanites are involved. It's interesting to see how power plays out in defining place.
DeleteWas this area prized for it's conservational/wilderness value as well? The above comments make me wonder, how would the situation have changed had both been true? That is, if there was a homeless population that occupied the green space that was also valued for undeveloped natural resources, who would have won out in the end? This post brings out just how complicated these battles over the right to inhabit space can be, even though they may not be on such a large scale as this one.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post! And I think what Eleanor points out about who is involved in the protests, and what the other comments add to this point, is telling when looking at power relations and thinking about who controls the space and decides what is to be done about it. Just as we saw in how place affects our various identities, in homelessness and place, in memorialization, and in gentrification, the issues of public space is deeply rooted in power relations and control. As we have been discussing throughout the course thus far, this is another reminder of how important it is to consider the power relations in place when thinking about space and place.
ReplyDelete