The only constant is change

Chinatown, Los Angeles, in the mid-1960s. My mother, her hair elaborately piled atop her head, buys tofu at a corner grocery on Sunset Boulevard in Chinatown. Around the corner on Spring Street, my father restocks the shelves at his uncle’s wholesale store, dawdling to read Descartes essays from behind horn-rimmed glasses; she has yet to stumble across the store. (A few years later, the fictional Evelyn Mulwray would slump onto her pink Packard’s horn in front of the store.)

Forty years before this moment, the corner store sold tomato paste and cream to an Italian neighborhood. Forty years after this moment, that block of Spring is a parking lot and weekend Vietnamese garment market in the shadow of Gold Line trains ferrying revelers from downtown LA to Pasadena (not the other way ’round); the corner store puts guavas out onto the sidewalk of César Chavez Avenue; statuesque models, chattering in German, spill out from gallery openings and into the alley behind Chung King Road.

My parents have settled in behind a fragrant magnolia in Southern suburbia, and I in a deeply contested neighborhood — at times predominantly German, Polish, Puerto Rican, crime-ridden, bohemian, hip, and now yuppie, all within living memory and all still very much in evidence. Sure, the usual narrative of neighborhood change is written from a middle-class point of view, with its capitalist, WASPy, and heteronormative biases. But cities and societies change, and all of us, even those of us trusted with little power by said society, are complicit in this process.

Sure, we might ultimately want a fairer, more democratic, and more visionary process guiding said change, but apathy seems to get the better of most of us. The few who do act often default to obstructionism — an ultimately untenable stance, since I think we can all agree that the status quo is, well, unsustainable. Very few dare to dream about the future; even though government has a vested interest in looking ahead (to meet its obligations to provide for future generations), it typically does little to stimulate such discussions. Far easier for elected officials to look no further than the next election, of course.

Before my mother followed the dreams of ’60s America and drove out to California, she lived in Boston’s Chinatown, which, like the Italian North End, gained some sense of seclusion in the shadows of the Central Artery. (Before that, and I still struggle to wrap my head around the thought — but she has the boxes of tiny paper umbrellas to prove it — she slung tiki drinks and moo shoo pork for taciturn Yankees from behind a bar in Plymouth.) Now that the wraps are finally coming off the latest massive investment in downtown Boston, the easiest to reclaim edges — notably the reaches closest to the Common, now occupied by the likes of the Ritz-Carlton — have launched the neighborhood’s inevitable annexation to the hungry central business district. Chinatown in New York is famously durable (mostly because of an unstoppable flow of migration from the most populous nation in history), but the “East End” and Gallery Place have subsumed Washington’s postage-stamp Chinatown underneath huge entertainment venues for Washingtonians long starved of any real urban experiences. Meanwhile, I recently caught myself looking longingly at a row of lovely new modern rowhouses in Chinatown — what a view! what a price! and so close to up and coming Pilsen!

Colson Whitehead reminds us that none of us really “owns” the neighborhood or the city; we just rent from the next generation.

Listen to me, with my “back in the day” and “can’t throw a rock without hitting a bistro.” As if putting in eleven years in this borough makes me an old hand. The longtime residents—longer-time residents—know I’m just another one of the displaced Manhattan chumps. Everybody is someone’s newcomer, someone else’s gentrifier. I gave somebody the boot out of an apartment in Brooklyn a while back, and recently someone else gave me the boot. What do I know about Brooklyn? I know it’s part of New York City, and that means that every inch of it is constantly screaming, “Move, get out the way!” Bike messenger, delivery truck, sports stadium coming through. Honk honk. It’s a white neighborhood, it’s a black neighborhood, it’s an immigrant neighborhood, it’s a subplot on a sitcom about yuppies. It’s a working-class neighborhood, then it’s not. It’s changing so fast you shouldn’t bother unpacking, and you might as well blame water for being wet.

In the end, the same energy that draws us here, binds us to this place, is alternately creative and destructive, razing here, renovating there, and it’s all we can do to adapt.

Neighborhoods change; their changes reflect the way our societies change. That’s neither bad nor good, happy nor sad; it just is. The best we can do is to go along for the ride, make sure everyone prospers, and create great neighborhoods for everyone — both today and tomorrow.

Foolishly high downtown rents sink theatre

“The theater is drowning in debt, thanks in part to expensive rent in the Loop theater district. Noble Fool didn�t say how much money it owes.” And so Crain’s reports that the Noble Fool, a token attempt to bring off-Loop comedy onto the ballyhooed “Randolph Street Theatre District,” has gone dark. The economies of small scale, and especially not the economies of small scale theatre (read: no economies), just couldn’t pay for a brand-new space in a high-rent district, regardless of the city subsidies that went into the space.

In some sense, if the Loop were more residential, that would bode well for tenants like Noble Fool: not only would there be a larger home market and a larger base of nighttime entertainment options (as it is, it’s not fun to be stuck in the Loop at 10pm; there’s nowhere to eat!), but the presence of residential (instead of office) would imply somewhat lower property values.

You paid what for that?

Creative Time, a public art group in NYC that I’ve been a fan of since their 42nd Street project (I even had the pleasure of seeing the Brooklyn Bridge anchorage installation in 2001), has unveiled a new graphic identity. Now, I’ve never been fond of people who stand in art museums and exclaim “my three-year-old could have done that!” at the abstract expressionist pieces, but… is simply stamping out the firm’s name in Trade Gothic really all that amazing?

Smart growth’s real impact yet to come

Innovation Briefs” has an editorial concluding (largely, it seems, on the basis of anecdotes and David Brooks’ awful generalizations) that “the most recent Census Bureau data, documenting demographic trends since the 2000 Census, suggest that the “smart growth” movement is having little influence on reshaping America’s urban landscape. The demographic and economic forces driving metropolitan expansion are too powerful to be reined in by the entreaties of smart growth advocates.”

Well, yes. “Smart growth” entered the lexicon in, oh, 1996 or so. It takes an achingly long time to stop a train, much less throw it into reverse, so one wouldn’t expect smart growth to have an immediately huge impact on the way Americans live. Sprawl has been the status quo for the better part of a century now, really, and no crisis moment has arisen to give it the good kick in the rear that it needs.

I sometimes point out that the residential boom in Chicago, for instance, doesn’t reflect an actual boom in population. It reflects increased wealth, for one, but more importantly it reflects the turnaround: the slowdown and gradual reversal of 40 years of population losses. If this is just what the slowdown of the losses — just a change in the rate of change (in calculus, the first derivative) looks like, just imagine what a real boom would look like. The train is decelerating, all right, but it’s been chugging along so fast that the naysayers can still say that we’re moving right along.

Commute by boat

From the design competition docs for the Calumet Environmental Center (the winner of which — Studio/Gang — was announced yesterday):

“The site is accessible by foot, bicycle and automobile. Plans include extending the 130th Street and Torrence Avenue Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) bus service to reach the site… The site will be connected to a system of bike paths that will allow people to bike from the north side of Chicago into the Calumet region. Also, the site abuts the Calumet River and may allow access via canoe.

I’ve always (half-jokingly) mentioned commuting by boat as a major reason to open up access to the riverfront (even before I knew anyone who actually did so). Maybe the message is sinking in?

10 steps for Earth Day

Unfortunately, many Earth Day activities focus on feel-good but ultimately ineffective ways to “save the earth.”

Canada’s David Suzuki Foundation offers the Nature Challenge, “the top 10 ways you can conserve nature.” Not surprisingly, three have to do with household operation, two with food, and 4.5 with driving.

1. Reduce home energy use by 10%
2. Choose an energy-efficient home and appliances
3. Replace dangerous pesticides with alternatives
4. Eat�meat-free meals one day a week
5. Buy locally grown and produced food
6. Choose a fuel-efficient vehicle
7. Walk, bike, carpool or take transit
8. Choose a home close to work or school
9. Support car-free alternatives
10. Learn more and share with family and friends

Sleight of hand again

“First they sold us on tearing down public housing by promising housing vouchers. Now that there aren’t even gutted buildings to squat in, they’re taking away the vouchers.” Harold Henderson, Reader, 23 April, with news of the cuts in Section 8

I went to a lecture over the weekend — don’t remember who was lecturing, since I walked in at the very end — where the speaker declared his intention of “writing the story of public housing in Chicago as a farce.” From its initial construction, through Gautreaux, to the Plan for Transformation and its various failures, the city’s cynical weaseling and scapegoating would indeed be hilarious in satire — if only they were couched in a scenario where no one really felt any pain, and if only the whole shroud of race and class (which prevents anyone from really speaking openly about any of it) could disappear. Of course, said housing policy has caused real pain, and the wild-eyed suspiciousness of public housing residents testifies to that.