Anderson’s (1987) article of Vancouver’s Chinatown tells a story of cultural neighborhood with a rich history. What interested me most in this article was the city of Vancouver’s official designation of the neighborhood, now giving the neighborhood specific coordinates on a map. In doing so, as the article mentions, white European ideals trouble and complicate this site that has long been an important space for Chinese residents. This instance of cities intervening with cultural neighborhoods and imposing borders reminded me of a similar situation in Chicago, Illinois. In 1997, mayor Richard M. Daley designated the North Halstead-Broadway corridor as the nation’s first gay neighborhood (Johnson, 1997). This neighborhood designation comes after a long history of gay activity in the area, calling into question the purpose and need for such an acknowledgment from the city.
Considering the article from the Design Studio for Social Intervention (n.d.), both Vancouver’s Chinatown and Chicago’s Boystown, as well as countless other cultural neighborhoods across the world face spatial injustices in the very space that was constructed by them and for them. With cities labeling these neighborhoods through official means, it makes me wonder what happens within these now established borders. For example, Papadopoulus (2006) pointed to how Boystown is facing a “de-queering” of its space, pointing to the city’s role in gentrification as an accelerant. It seems to be this double-edged sword of cities offering designated places for their citizens to live, thrive, and exist. Yet these city designations become placed ontop of already established places, causing spatial injustices in places like Chicago and Vancouver.
I also want to recommend Amin Ghaziani's great book There Goes the Gayborhood?. The book is largely centered in Chicago's Boystown but follows the rise and fall of the gayborhood in a post-gay era.
References:
Anderson, K. J. (1987). The idea of Chinatown: The power of place and institutional practice in the making of a racial category. Annals of Association of American Geographers, 77, 580-598.
Johnson, D. (1997). Chicago hails district as symbol of gay life. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/27/us/chicago-hails-district-as-symbol-of-gay-life.html
Papadopoulus, A. (2006). From 'Towertown' to 'Boystown' and 'Girlstown': Chicago's gay and lesbian geographies. In R. P. Greene, M. J. Boyman, & D. Grammenos (Eds.), Chicago's geographies: Metropolis for the 21st century (pp. 232-241). Association of American Geographers.
Design Studio for Social Intervention. (n.d.). Spatial Justice: A frame for reclaiming our rights to be, thrive, express, and connect.
I like your discussion: “It seems to be this double-edged sword of cities offering designated places for their citizens to live, thrive, and exist”. Totally agree! I believe in some cases, the first purpose of these designated neighborhoods is to protect queer community. But in general, how they are officially labeled makes them separate from the whole area, resulting in spatial injustices. The geographical segregation seems to create an abnormal feeling toward the neighborhoods. For me, this arouses the necessity and emergency of more careful and thoughtful policies from local governments to accompany these vulnerable groups.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, the engagement of vulnerable people in policymaking should also be considered. It somehow reminds me of the argument about accessibility in places: “The terms of reference and the means of access have, as a rule, not been determined by disabled people but rather by non-disabled authorities” (Titchkosky 2002). I mean, a policy for vulnerable communities should be assessed, evaluated, and even approved by themselves, not by outside communities only – which is the case often nowadays.
Anh Do