A Lesser-Known Relationship with the Environment
We've read and discussed pieces of writing illustrating wealthy Angelenos' relationships with the environment: in an excerpt from her book Echoes in the City of the Angels, Helen Hunt Jackson speaks to the importance of the environment as part of the Angeleno identity, stating that "no one knows Los Angeles who does not climb to these sunny out-lying heights, and roam and linger on them many a day." Jackson's perception of Angelenos' relationship with the environment is isolating and one-dimensional - it speaks to the upper-class experience. How does socioeconomic status impact our relationship with our natural surroundings? More broadly, how does our identity (race, gender, residence, etc) impact our relationship with the L.A. landscape?
Other things to consider: the term "environmental racism" refers to marginalized racial minority communities who are subjected to disproportionate exposure of pollutants and/or deprived of ecological benefits (clean air, water, food, natural resources, etc). Does environmental racism manifest in Los Angeles and if so, where and what do you know (think about communities along the L.A. River and other natural monuments, or displacements resulting from natural disasters, etc.)? Are impacted communities advocating for equal access to natural resources and benefits?
Other things to consider: the term "environmental racism" refers to marginalized racial minority communities who are subjected to disproportionate exposure of pollutants and/or deprived of ecological benefits (clean air, water, food, natural resources, etc). Does environmental racism manifest in Los Angeles and if so, where and what do you know (think about communities along the L.A. River and other natural monuments, or displacements resulting from natural disasters, etc.)? Are impacted communities advocating for equal access to natural resources and benefits?
It seems like, based on our readings and discussions of environmentalism during the 20th century, the white/upper-class communities had much more lobbying power and so were able to use "environmental concerns" to prevent freeways from being built in their neighborhoods, forcing the detrimental impacts (health concerns, noise, traffic, etc.) of development into lower-class, largely PoC neighborhoods.
ReplyDeleteIt also seems like in some hikes/natural recreation areas in LA, the visitors are mostly white, particularly mountains near the West Side. However, in my local mountains (Altadena etc) there is typically a much more diverse group of visitors. This may just have to do with the fact that Pasadena/Altadena is more diverse than some neighborhoods near the Hollywood Hills, but I wonder if the perception of the mountains in Pasadena is different than the other LA mountains. (More accessible ?)
I agree with Emma… In addition, it also seem like the upper class is able to use their wealth and power to make interactions with nature easier and even sometimes artificial (?). For example the Lowe Railway was a way for not only elite Angelenos to “interact with nature,” but it also gave tourists, most likely, upper-class an excuse to be in nature. It’s not like the people actually went up the hike, rather they sat in the railway cart. Then, they got to go to a fancy hotel and look at the nature instead of interact with it.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of that, I see that a lot of people don’t really interact with nature anymore. Like my group joked in our podcast, it seems like a lot of people go on hikes, for example, to Runyon Canyon, to take pictures. They are too absorbed in the tech world to be involved in the nature world.
I kinda thought about the NIMBY idea when reading Emma's post. It seems like everyone who is advocating for things to change (just not at their expense) come from a place of privilege. I wonder how this applies to those who are directly affected. But back to the initial question, I find it interesting that a handful of middle/upperclass people in Los Angeles live in the Hollywood Hills, Pacific Palisades, Bel Air, etc. Their homes tower over the rest of civilization creating somewhat of an elevated Levitt Town consisting of bunch of massive residences. Simply by living in the mountains or hills creates an interesting power dynamic. It also reinforces the idea that there is a "specific group" of people that take advantage of the hills when going on hikes for example.
ReplyDeleteIn a metaphorical sense, there is a hierarchy with the landscaping of homes in the hills in contrast to homes that are not. Class plays a role in it and as a result, there is a particular demographic that is attracted to the areas. While some places are more diverse than others, it still seems like those who can afford homes on hills tend to gravitate towards those neighborhoods.
I agree with Emma and Sophie regarding how there have been many instances where wealthy white families and communities have used their money to continue living the privileged and "picture perfect" life they are accustomed to. This idea was also mentioned in the Environmental Activism Reading. Within the text it talked about how in Beverley Hills, many wealthy, white anti-highway advocates were able to prevent a highway being built in their community due to the amount of money they possessed. I am amazed and disappointed to see that there have been many circumstances,and still are, where wealth and race has determine whether you are respected and listened to.
ReplyDeleteOften, I believe that being in the upper-class also means more available leisure time and thus, more time to go out into nature and experience the hikes sprawled out all over Los Angeles. Also, much of L.A.’s hiking and natural space is, by nature, located in the mountains and areas that are fairly secluded - ones that generally lean towards upper-classes - and are thus more accessible to those who live near them.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that environmental racism is a prevalent problem in Los Angeles, especially after reading some of the articles on the ability of the upper-class to sway city government’s decisions in where they place freeways and other infrastructure of the sort. Because largely PoC and lower-class neighborhoods are often unable to have a say in what is placed in their cities, they are disproportionately affected and subject to the dangerous pollutants and/or air quality that comes along. I’ve read a few interesting articles/pieces on environmental racism and can clearly see that these communities are attempting to make some kind of change, but their weak lobbying power and lack of funds to try and remove things like industrial waste sites inevitably always hold them back.
I agree that Jackson’s perception of Angelenos’ experiences with nature speaks mainly to upper-class experiences, particularly in the fact that she describes sort of meandering around nature for the sake of knowing or exploring. In this sense, I don’t think this experience is accessible to many people, especially working people who just don’t have the time or resources to put aside hours to trek up hiking trails or drive to faraway nature reserves. In my experience of Los Angeles, though, I think people use the green space available to them as much as possible. The Grace E. Simon’s lodge and surrounding parks we read about last night are a good example- on any given weekend, the lawns around the lodge are filled with families and groups having barbecues, parties, and picnics, which are accessible ways to experience and engage with nature. I think our discussion of what it means to engage with nature has been centered around hiking and exercise, but there are a variety of other ways that people engage with nature that may be more accessible. For working-class people that may not have that much leisure time, it would make sense to combine family time with exposure to nature, and so having green spaces for casual, communal events and gatherings can add a lot to a city.
ReplyDeletePart of what makes Elysian Park accessible and available to a socioeconomically diverse group of people is its location in a central part of the city- it isn’t on the outskirts and doesn’t require a long drive to get there. On the other hand, environmental racism is evident in the usage of the northeastern part of the park– decades ago, the top part of the park was used as a landfill (despite a high concentration of people around it), and so the upper surface of the mountain is slowly sinking as the trash compresses. My brother’s little league field and headquarters are on the top of the hill, and they had to rebuild a bunch of the buildings last year because the ground sunk asymmetrically, leaving the buildings tilted. Anyway, I think Elysian Park represents an accessible and diversely used part of nature, but it is still affected by past environmental racism and neglect.
I think it's interesting to look at the Municipal Art Commission formed in 1903 that based its formation off progressive ideologies, but its agenda only ended up pushing minorities and lower-class families out of the city center and into subsidized and low-income homes. Its plan was to beautify the city by revamping bridges, fountains, fences, lampposts, etc. City officials also sought to establish and renovate recreational spaces and parks along with tourist attractions like Mt. Lowe. However, these decisions to advance Los Angeles only made our city more racially and socio-economically divided, as recreational spaces and tourist attractions were only offered to rich, white elite. The whole idea of making Los Angeles more beautiful was actually a driving force for making Los Angeles more segregated by using our landscape to back the dislocation of people of color. We obviously still see this today when we try and make LA a more "beautiful" place by gentrifying neighborhoods and in turn, displacing those who identify as minorities and lower-class citizens. It's weird that we say we have come a long way since then, though it doesn't seem like much has really changed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emma about how wealthy citizens are able to use their riches and their power to prevent infrastructure projects that would not benefit them from being built. For instance, Beverly Hills is known for being home to the extremely wealthy citizens of Los Angeles, and it has only one freeway that runs through it. However, when looking at a map of the area, I noticed that the streets were extremely wide and almost all of them had streetlights, which shows that the wealthy use their power to have accessories that only benefit them. Furthermore, there are hardly any businesses in the area, so the traffic there is far lesser compared to other areas. However, other cities that have more lower income families such as Inglewood have much narrower and crowded streets, as well as several business, which leads to more traffic in the area. Also, there are more freeways in the city, which shows how the wealthy take advantage of their money and power to ensure they live a better life while lower income areas have to suffer.
ReplyDeleteSince the successful fight to regain Elysian Park, Los Angeles communities have seemed to regain control over public policies that protect open space. However, I agree with Jackson's perception of Angelenos' experiences with nature is mainly tailored to the upper class. This concept of environmental not new to Los Angles; in fact, the city was built on the principle.
ReplyDeleteEnvironmental racism is and has been present in Los Angeles for a long time when it started during the Great Migration. Since Los Angeles was founded, redlining and restrictive covenants limited housing for minority communities. In the 1920s, most minorities (especially African Americans) were denied from accessing around 95% of available housing in the city. Subsequently, minority neighborhoods were created because there was no other option. Then, after the popularization of the automobile, freeways like the I-110 and I-10 transformed Los Angele's environmental conditions. These routes, which went through South LA, Southeast LA, and Boyle Heights, did not only contribute to air pollution but the displacement of entire communities.
ReplyDeletePeople are products of their environment.
In response to how socioeconomic status impacts our surroundings, both Section 80 housing and subsidizing housing are great examples. I would like to explore and talk about programs/policies negatively affecting impoverished people and their creation and current place in our society. Section 8 housing was an opportunity to allow lower-income people to "get out of the ghetto", but political pressure from wealthy elites and housing authorities imprisoned these citizens in concentrated areas of poverty. Landlords would often reject Section 8 housing vouchers and leave families cemented in the ghetto. White upper-class communities create designs such as the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, not as an instrument of desegregation but to maintain oppression. In the coming years, I wonder and also fear what programs we will implement/repeal for the "betterment" of people.
I agree with Emma, the wealthy mainly white communities had and still have much more lobbying power than lower income communities which they use to their advantage when they need it. Environmental impact assessments are one way the wealthy white community can manipulate people into building places like homeless shelters or rehabilitation centers in more "urban" areas where there are more lower class communities so they can keep their neighborhoods pristine thus keeping the NIMBY mentality.
ReplyDeleteI live kind of close to the mountains and I see the divide in just my town, Tujunga. The houses near the mountains are very nice where there are many trails you can hike with beautiful views, but as you go into more of the valley where I live you can see the transition from actual neighborhoods to decrepit, run down apartments where "coincidentally" there are a number of homeless shelters and transition centers. This is the literal representation of NIMBY where people say they want to help fix issues but feel entitled to a "clean" or "safe" neighborhood.
I also agree with Lux, upper class communities do have more time to enjoy the nature around them. From experience I know that more lower class families have people that have to work two jobs or ridiculous overtime hours to afford their homes which leaves no time for leisure.
I think socioeconomic status impacts our relationship with our natural surroundings because one may not have access to the transportation needed to reach the natural surroundings that include hikes and parks. This is one reason we usually see middle-upper class people in these natural surroundings. Moreover, another possible reason socioeconomic status impacts our relationship with the natural environment is because only the upper class will have a lot of free time to indulge in activities such as hiking on the weekdays. Usually, people are working and are so busy that they do not have leisure free time to spend on an activity such as hiking.
ReplyDeleteI think environmental racism manifests in places in Los Angeles such as Skid Row. Homelessness has been in an ongoing problem in the area, and since upper-class communities were in power, they were able to take advantage of lower class communities. They were able to do this because those in power knew that there would not be much resistance from those in need.
Socioeconomic status dictates both who has access to our natural surroundings and how well they are able to protect "their" world. Wealthy people can leverage their money to prevent the addition of new infrastructure such as buildings, highways, and bridges, while the rest of the citizen have their lifestyles encroached upon. Less privileged neighborhoods resist the changes; however, do not have a say in the end.
ReplyDeleteEnvironmental racism definitely begins in Los Angeles; however, minority communities are often displaced from their original homes. The aforementioned communities are payed to leave and then relocated to places outside of the city where they are subjected to worse climates and pollution indexes.
I was really interested in what Sophie said about how Angelenos use industrialization to connect more with nature (which is contradictory in and of itself). This made me remember an article I read in English class last year about how the freeways and other forms of industrialization have decreased and disrupted the mountain lion population in L.A.
ReplyDeleteI briefly mentioned this in my slack post but here is the article if you want to read it:
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-mountain-lion-freeway-bridge/
This might sound a bit cynical, but I think that Angelenos and, more specifically, white upper class individuals who have power have primarily selfish motivations. Not only are they promoting environmental racism against minority groups through displacement and a mindset of "Not in My Backyard," but also in the process of trying to make nature accessible to them, they also have largely negative impacts on the land. Super ironic and saddening.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter contemplating for awhile, I don’t think nature itself is a direct determining factor for minority displacement in Los Angeles; rather, I think minority and underprivileged groups in Los Angeles may be kicked out or pushed towards the natural surroundings, such as the Angeles National Forest, if it benefits the wealthy and privileged agenda. As we have seen in the last class, the San Gabriel Mountains don’t seem to be a very special place to many Angelenos unless it has to do with taking pictures or seeing the Hollywood sign. However, many wealthy people like to get away from the busier urban scene by buying/building houses out by the mountains. I feel like in this housing scenario, less socioeconomically privileged people may have to adjust where they settle down, whether that be moving inwards towards the city because of mansions built in the hills or moving outwards closer to the mountains because there is not enough room for them towards the city.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I’m glad you brought up the point of environmental racism because I think it is at the center of all displacement in Los Angeles. I think Angelenos’ relationships with nature are correlated to environmental racism along with displacement. Minority groups have to endure the consequences of environmental racism, and its repercussions are far worse than simply those of aesthetics. Going back to our discussion on how freeways have separated Los Angeles, it is already to our knowledge that freeways were built through low income areas. Therefore, the people of those areas currently have to deal with the issue that arise from freeways and overpopulation such as health problems. South Los Angeles is surrounded by the I-105 to the South, I-405 to the West, and the I-10 to the North. According to Ethnic Los Angeles, “Between 1970 and 1990 the South LA area went from 80% black and 9% Latino to 50.3% black and 44% Latino.” It is clear here that more latinos people had to be forced into this urban area as whites left and most likely occupied suburban areas closer to the mountains. Because of this, I feel as though low income and minority groups’ relations to nature are dependent on those of the privileged.
In terms of Jackson's description of who really "knows" Los Angeles, I think it is important to take into account the role that various time periods play in our concept of a wealthy person's LA. Now, the experience of a wealthy person in Los Angeles might look more like a Silverlake apartment, Soulcycle, or acai bowls etc. I think it's much easier to distance ourselves from concepts we look down on when they are removed from our realities, but I think it's important to consider that we might be the modern equivalents of the Angelenos that Jackson referred to.
ReplyDeleteI do think it's still true that only those with time to spare (those that have enough money to not be working all the time) can really enjoy the natural surroundings of Los Angeles. Factually, most of these people will be white. But this isn't a problem that only pertains to LA, and neither is environmental racism, though both are prevalent here. For example, I have no doubt that majority minority communities work just as hard to protect their communities from disproportionately unhealthy living standards as the residents of Beverly Hills do; the difference, then, must be in the power dynamic.
On another note, it's easy to decry NIMBYism when the conflict doesn't directly involve you. Many of us are privileged, and we often aren't the ones that are threatened by such lifestyle changes as permanent housing for the homeless.