Community Displacement: Freeways And Suburbanization
In Los Angeles, some of the poorest parts of the city are often tied to the formation of freeways and creation of the suburbs. However, I will need to provide some historical context to illustrate why these two entities are connected. After World War II ended, there was a housing shortage in Los Angeles due to the influx of returning soldiers and African Americans migrating from the South. In a means to rectify this issue, the government provided low-cost financing to white citizens buying houses in the suburbs. Inevitably, the urban white population of Los Angeles decreased resulting in many businesses moving and fewer job opportunities. In urban Los Angeles, unemployment, crime, and poverty all skyrocketed, which in turn led to many restrictive policies that forced minority groups to stay in these areas. These marginalized groups were unable to get access to these government loans so they couldn't afford to leave the city regardless of these punitive policies.
As this was happening in the 1940-1960s, freeways were being built, which connected the suburbs with the city. Due to their efficiency, freeways redefined Angelenos means of transportation which made the public (Generally white Americans) rely on their own cars rather than public transit. Now, suburbia became even more attractive to white Americans because how fast one could travel to the city. However, these freeways were destructive to the already disenfranchised urban Los Angeles. When roads were built through these neighborhoods, minority groups were either relocated or paid small amounts of money to make way for the new construction. To make matters worse, most of this development was also financially backed by the government which made it nearly impossible for any urban community to resist being removed.
In many of the past blog posts, we have discussed the role gentrification plays in the marginalization and displacement of minority communities. However, we have never looked back and addressed the fact that minority communities in Los Angeles have been oppressed and displaced for decades. Although we are now witnessing a resurgence in the population returning to the city, how do freeways still displace communities in Los Angeles? How is this different than gentrification? Is there a simple solution to this issue (i.e., Not driving on that freeway) or is it more complicated than that? Feel free to ask any questions regarding the history of suburbanization or freeways, and I'll do my best to respond.
As this was happening in the 1940-1960s, freeways were being built, which connected the suburbs with the city. Due to their efficiency, freeways redefined Angelenos means of transportation which made the public (Generally white Americans) rely on their own cars rather than public transit. Now, suburbia became even more attractive to white Americans because how fast one could travel to the city. However, these freeways were destructive to the already disenfranchised urban Los Angeles. When roads were built through these neighborhoods, minority groups were either relocated or paid small amounts of money to make way for the new construction. To make matters worse, most of this development was also financially backed by the government which made it nearly impossible for any urban community to resist being removed.
In many of the past blog posts, we have discussed the role gentrification plays in the marginalization and displacement of minority communities. However, we have never looked back and addressed the fact that minority communities in Los Angeles have been oppressed and displaced for decades. Although we are now witnessing a resurgence in the population returning to the city, how do freeways still displace communities in Los Angeles? How is this different than gentrification? Is there a simple solution to this issue (i.e., Not driving on that freeway) or is it more complicated than that? Feel free to ask any questions regarding the history of suburbanization or freeways, and I'll do my best to respond.
Going off of that history, I think the history of the 710 freeway is really interesting. Starting in the 30s, state transportation officials started mapping out routes for the freeway, which included a connection from Monterey Park to Long Beach. About 10 years later, the Governor at the time signed legislation, which extended the route of the 701 into South Pasadena. In the 50s and 60s, construction began on the southern portion of the freeway (this is the part that connects Long Beach to Los Angeles) and in the early 1960s, Caltrans began purchasing houses in South Pas and Pasadena along the expected route of the 710. In 1965, a 1.3 mile segment of the freeway was opened, but construction on the northern end was delayed due to protests in South Pas. In 1973, lawsuits were filed against the freeway by South Pas and other environmental organizations saying that the project should be “subjected to a more rigorous environmental review,” according to the LA Times. This hated construction for 25 years. In 1992, Governor Pete Wilson ordered the freeway built; however, in 1995, lawsuits popped up again. 3 years later, Federal government approves the extension of the 710, but a few months later South Pas sued again. Fast forward to 2015 and Caltrans prepares to sell some home in the path of the 710… but 2 years later, in 2017, there was talk of scrapping the project, and now the final decision rests with Caltrans — also I’m kind of confused what happened after because there isn’t at on of stuff online… I’m assuming since no new freeway has been built that it probably won’t happen?
ReplyDeleteAlso, on a completely different topic, we kind of talked about this the other day in class, but I just thought that it was really interesting how in Tropic of Orange, Buzzworm brings up the issue with freeways and how they separate communities. On page 31, Yamashita narrates, “[Buzz] realized you could just skip over his house, his streets, his part of town. You never had to see it ever.” I thought this was reflective of what we’ve been talking about in class - how you don’t really have to pass through any part of town you don’t want to.
Finally, a funny thing about freeways is that they were technically built to connect us to one another, but they have ended up keeping us apart…
I see many connections with the events that you described, with the government giving loans to the white population so that they may move to more desirable locations while ignoring the minority groups of Los Angeles, with how minority groups are still treated today. This particular applies to minority groups’ odds of getting mortgages, as highlighted here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/opinion/mortage-minority-income.html
ReplyDeleteI think it’s interesting that the white population of Los Angeles is the primary benefactor of freeways and efficient transportation (enabling them to have greater freedom of choice as to where they live) but they still don’t want them to be in sight - as we read in the case of Beverly Hills some years ago. Because of this, they just push it on to minority communities because they would rather not deal with the bad things that come along with freeways, from increased sound and smog/pollution, and solely use them for what good comes along.
Instead of saying that freeways “displace” minority groups in Los Angeles, I would instead say that they isolate them. Much of the building of freeways happen in their backyards and have been sprung up without their movement, which in turn creates passageways that rarely benefit them and instead give drivers a chance to simply pass over their parts of the city without experiencing anything going on there. I think that the presence of freeways has started to be thought of as less of an issue for homeowners as of late, which might play a role in why city-living has become much more popular in recent years - because the white population can now enjoy freeways’ benefits at a much closer proximity. However, I wouldn’t quite say it’s on the same level as gentrification because we still see that many minority groups are the ones that continue to live in the city center rather than being pushed out to the suburbs (even though they may be pushed out entirely). Like with the issue of gentrification, I don’t think the solution is to simply abstain entirely but rather at least go on with some sort of awareness of the issue.
I think the role of transportation in uplifting / harming communities depends on that particular freeway or train line. Sometimes, the addition of a highway or train can boost a community because it promotes businesses near off-ramps or stops. But, in cases like the 710, 110, and north-south freight line in Los Angeles that run through South LA, (along the "shoestring"), we had talked about how much of the traffic goes from DTLA to San Pedro/Long Beach and back with not much stopping in between. This goes back to Sophie's quote from Tropic of Orange about the freeway allowing people to just skip over communities, and clearly this wouldn't uplift communities if so few people are getting off at off-ramps between downtown and the port areas and patronizing those businesses.
ReplyDeleteMany people in Los Angeles embrace our freeways. However, many also oppose the freeways. In fact, Angelenos were able to take away around 700 miles of the initial freeway blueprint, including one that would’ve supposedly gone straight through Beverly Hills. Freeways seem to divide neighborhoods with varying socioeconomic levels. These splits are because the city seems to cater to the upper class and keep the pollution and various side effects away from the privileged. Beverly Hills residents were able to collect over 500,000 signatures and overthrow the building of a freeway. They argued that they wanted to protect themselves from health risks. Since the freeways are so intertwined and drilled into LA’s history, I am not sure if there is a simple solution for the displacement. Regarding the housing problem in LA, around 60,000 houses were lost to freeway construction and around 3,000 residents are displaced every year. Therefore, the opposition to freeways continues to grow. However, the residents that are displaced are brushed aside and not listened to.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emma about how some particular freeways harm communities while others benefit communities. I think some freeways like the 210 benefits the community more than it harms it, while freeways like the 110 harm the community by causing lots of traffic jams and making hard to travel for the residents. I also find it interesting to see the connections between wealthy communities and less infrastructure projects, as we have explored how wealthy communities are able to use their money and power to persuade the city to not build things like freeways in their area, like how Beverly Hills refuses to have a freeway built through it.
ReplyDeleteI think something really important to talk about is the building of the Dodger Stadium in 1962 and with that, the displacement of the residents of Chavez Ravine. For a long time, Chavez Ravine was home to a close-knit community of Mexican Americans, but in 1950, this community was chosen for the site of the Elysian Park Heights housing project. Despite all the protests and backlash in response to the housing project, the city bought out the private property and promised those residents they would have guaranteed housing with the new project. That project soon fell through, and seven years later, there were only 20 families still living in Chavez Ravine. The following year, city officials approved the building of Dodger Stadium and the remaining residents of Chavez Ravine were forcibly removed. With the Dodger Stadium came the construction of new freeways, a literal divide between minority groups. While the Dodger Stadium directly impacted Chavez Ravine, the freeways subsequently affected multiple communities through demolition and general change. Obviously, to the city officials of LA, this construction of both the freeways and the stadium was seen as an advancement and modernity, the neighborhoods that were forced to endure this sort of industrial stress saw them as disastrous and harmful. Today, during the Baseball season in LA, when the freeways become too busy (already a disruption to the surrounding neighborhoods), people tend to take side streets to get to the stadium. The neighborhoods in which those side streets reside soon fill up with cars that honk and flash lights– and people take these routes with absolutely no regard for the communities they are driving through. While we can't change the past and take back what we have already done, I think there is something to be said about how we treat our land and the people that live on it today, as we do have some control over that now.
ReplyDeletehere's an interesting little animated short film about the building of the dodger stadium and the destruction of chavez ravine. take a gander: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2AJTwheOwk&t=213s
DeleteGoing off your point about how freeways have often disrupted and split neighborhoods without the economic or political power to oppose highway construction projects, I think the government has used systemic tools like eminent domain seizure to take advantage of low-income or marginalized communities. Eminent domain, or the government’s right to reappropriate private land for public use as it sees fit, has been around since the late 1800s. Under eminent domain, the government could plan a highway and seize the land around it, even if it’s privately owned– but they are supposed to provide just compensation to owners and demonstrate that the land serves a public interest. In reality, historical use of eminent domain has rarely followed these guidelines– governments have used the rule to grab land in key areas, then refused to pay displaced people full market value for their homes. Ultimately, even if people don't agree to the offered price, the government has the last word- they can simply evict residents. To challenge such a seizure, people would have to go to court and sue government officials, who are backed by formidable lawyers and bureaucracy. Eminent domain seizures remove agency from affected communities– if they don’t want a highway, the government will take peoples’ houses and pay them barely enough to relocate to a worse area. Even if they are fairly paid, they should not be forced to leave their homes if they don’t want to; eminent domain ignores the emotional or historical connection many people may have to their houses and surroundings. Many residents of low-income communities, marginalized areas, or communities of color did not have the necessary resources for fighting eminent domain– areas like Chavez Ravine were emptied and razed for public projects, like the building of Dodger Stadium.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I bring up eminent domain is because it illustrates how political and economic disadvantage enabled legal discrimination against working-class people and communities of color. While it’s difficult to reverse or fix the negative effects of Los Angeles highways on surrounding communities, we can prevent future harm by calling out exploitative use of eminent domain and increasing the availability of legal resources. Last year, Los Angeles authorities started using eminent domain to pick up houses in Manchester in South LA, where they plan to build parking facilities for the LAX airport. The project is actually controversial, because the neighborhood has been losing residents for a while– some people say it is a “ghost town” anyway, so it might as well be razed to build parking lots. I think this kind of rhetoric mirrors the excuses officials used to justify freeway plans in low-income areas; neighborhoods that aren’t picturesque and wealthy are viewed as expendable. Government officials in small, rich cities (like South Pasadena) and Los Angeles development authorities should speak up against legal exploitation and use their voice to advocate against eminent domain usage on freeway projects.
As with most of the issues that we discuss, I definitely don't think there's a simple fix to the freeway debate. In general, I think that people are only willing to go so far to stand up for things that they believe in, and boycotting freeways or shutting them down and building new ones would be a huge inconvenience to literally everyone in the entire city. I mean, if you think LA traffic is bad now....
ReplyDeleteReading Harry's blog post and having voted earlier in the day :), I started thinking about California's Proposition 6, which would repeal the state's gas tax if passed. However, a crucial side effect of the passage of Prop 6 would be that it would mean a large reduction in the local transportation funding, "stopping thousands of road safety, congestion relief and transportation improvement projects" (according to the official voter information guide).
Earlier today, I read that California already has some of the worst roads in the country, and based on past trends, the funding that would still go to bridges and roads would most likely be used in wealthier and/or whiter places. I think a connection can be drawn between how freeways have been positioned and how money might be apportioned regarding future issues of transportation.
this is for RACHEL TOKOFSKY because she doesn't have wifi:
ReplyDeleteFreeways are one of the most defining factors of Los Angeles, and our freeways are largely what sets our city apart from others.
The construction of freeways, has, from the start, been at the expense of low income and minority communities who, because of systemic and institutionalized oppression lack the resources needed to successfully fight the building of freeways and roads (prime example: Boyle heights) freeways, literally divide up the neighborhoods and destroyed the cohesiveness of the community. Those with more money and political power (white people) have historically been the ones spearheading the construction and placement freeways. Another thing related to this is the locations of on/off ramps, the locations of which are largely tied to an increase in the economic prosperity of that specific area. On another note, there is a whole other connection between freeways and school locations. Regulations now prohibit building public schools within a certain proximity to freeways, but charters, which are on the rise In LA, don’t have to comply with this.
We sort of touched upon this idea in class, but freeways have totally streamlined transportation, making it increasingly easier to hop on the freeway and never actually know the neighborhoods around you. Freeways, in and of themselves, are created for a very specific demographic- you need to have access to a car or else your trapped in another sense. Our public transit is, as anyone from LA knows, nowhere close to as efficient as a car. It seems to me like public transit was sort of an afterthought in LAs development. I know when I take the metro v. the bus even those two forms of transportation are totally different. The metro, like freeways, are more streamlined, but not as effective in their reach has busses. But then buses take forever...so there’s like no way to win.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI also agree with Emma. I think some freeways are harming communities but I think other freeways benefit their communities. I do believe that freeways separate and isolate certain communities in their path. With freeways literally being built on top of communities, it is easier for commuters to just pass through without even having to look at the communities they are passing by. I think a great depiction of the effects freeways have on communities is in The Great Wall of Los Angeles which is a huge mural which shows everything from Chicano culture to the red scare. One piece of the mural called The Division of the Barrios and Chavez Ravine shows the impact of the construction of Dodger Stadium and freeways on local communities. The illustration shows Dodger stadium looking like a UFO at the top, while a family is being separated from each other by a freeway with a policeman forcefully removing an angry woman. The support columns of the freeway are shown crushing the houses below it. The freeways changed/affected the surrounding neighborhoods with demolition and construction; the freeways really affected the residents of East LA who at the time were of Mexican-American descent and many were immigrant families who either had to move or live with the constant construction, noise, and air pollution.
ReplyDeleteThis is completely random but I have noticed that many freeways have high walls and you can't see the majority of the communities around which really isolates them. Like when driving on the 210 you can't see much because of the high walls or on the 5 in some parts like Boyle Heights where you can really only see the mountains and higher buildings. Maybe this could be done on purpose so people don't have to even see most of the areas they are passing through.
Like many other topics we discuss in class, I don't think this can easily be fixed. However, I do think the topic of transportation in LA and more specifically, freeways in LA is extremely interesting due to its benefits and obstructions. We live in a place that was built off of racism and taking advantage of the poor. Unfortunately, it is something that is almost built in our roots which makes it a harder problem to solve. Regarding freeways, I think the idea of NIMBYism comes back into play as well as the idea of the wealthy getting what they want. I've noticed, like Emma and Sophie said earlier, some freeways I travel either run through a poorer neighborhood or community or allow people to avoid the neighborhoods of a lower income. In almost all cases, the communities getting displaced are of a lower income. Sadly, we live in a place where the lower classes don't have a voice and if the lower classes happen to get a word in, it is overshadowed by the upper class or wealthy. I think this idea of being overshadowed goes hand in hand with race as well. The depiction of race and how greatly it affects our community is sometimes blanketed. I've kind of been all over the place with this post, but as I am writing, I'm realizing the problem of isolation or the displacement of a community because of freeways is so complex. Race, socioeconomic status, and many other factors play a role; I feel as if to tackle a problem so complex we need to discuss the problematic factors within, which has not happened yet.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to current freeways situations, I am not sure how freeways displace people today, but I assume it wouldn’t be too much different than how it was in the past. I read an article about how cities would try to build freeways in locations that would “serve the greater good.” As a result, working class immigrants would be most affected, predominantly Mexicans, Italian, Irish, Russian Jews, and Blacks. They would target these areas by tagging them as slums, and they believed constructing freeways through these neighborhoods would “help eliminate them from the city landscape” while also improving commerce and travel. This idea left residents in these communities at the mercy of those constructing.
ReplyDeleteOne example the article gave about tagging communities took place in Boyle Heights. An agent went to oversee the area and reported that the neighborhood had a large portion of single immigrant males. This agent described the area as “overcrowded and unsanitary” which caused people to believe these conditions caused numerous diseases including the plague. This stereotype along with many others were used to make people want to displace these residents which allowed for freeways to be built.
I think Rachel brought up an interesting point about freeway privilege and public transit. Freeways in Los Angeles are like red carpets to those whom are privileged enough to use them. You need a car. You need gas. Moreover, these "red carpet highways" make commuting/traveling much more convenient to these privileged drivers at the expense of others. The freeways divide and segregate parts of Los Angeles, typically the urbanized areas. It isn't always a thought while driving, but when looking at the geography of Los Angeles, the freeways play a huge role in the division of the city.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I agree with Rachel in that the topic of public transit in LA is somewhat of an afterthought. The Metro transit system is efficient, affordable and reliable. While I occasionally use the train to travel across La, for example, many individuals as well as families take the train on a regular basis. This is the alternative to taking the freeways that are, like I mentioned, a privilege to even use. The buses may not always be efficient as Rachel mentioned; however, for most people that is an only option of transportation and I think it would be interesting to learn more about our public transit system and how it may be evolving over the years. I know Sophia Duncan is very adept in the field of transportation in Los Angeles, I would love to hear more from her about it! Oh wait, I think she could be facilitating.. either way!
(excuse any typos please, goodnight)
I completely agree with Rachel's point—freeways were created for priveleged people in the first place. The idea that you must have a car in order to get around easily and without the hassle of LA public transport is one that is tailored to upper class individuals who most likely live in nicer neighborhoods. The freeways are not only are for the upper class, but they also divert the upperclass from the issues in other, lower class neighborhoods. You can't even see the city you are in when you are driving on the freeway. I feel like there is definitely a disconnect between L.A. county and it's inhabitants—to be honest I don't even think I have been to every city in L.A. before just because of the mere presence of freeways. To answer Harry's question, I don't think that it is practical or even helpful at this point to boycott the freeways. Instead, we should be focusing on improving public transportation and looking at places like Washington D.C. and San Francisco as models.
ReplyDeleteWhile searching for places to construct freeways in Los Angeles, areas such as Boyle Heights were considered slums due to the large concentration of minority residents. Additionally the Los Angeles Housing Commission conducted surveys that concluded that the aforementioned communities were home to diseases such as the bubonic plague. The combination of biased surveys and a damaging image of the minorities furthered the notion that these communities were the perfect location for the new project. When architects and engineers drafted master plans for the freeways they substituted the classification of slum to the “less offensive” red tagged location, which aided the process of designating the route of the proposed roadways. The construction of freeways due in part to strategies like red tagging, both forced minorities from their homes and created a border for those who were left in the areas. In 2018 minorities are still clustered near freeways. I do not believe that freeways are displacing people differently than they did in the years surrounding their completion. I think that freeways continue to serve as physical dividers that paralyze people without the access to transportation.
ReplyDeleteFreeways financially funded by the government are an immovable wall. Communities try to combat the construction, but only the wealthy succeed. Lower income communities are drowning while city officials are ignoring their cry. I wonder how much more destruction we need to inflict. Recently in class, we have talked about the freeway's economic segregation which made me picture the future of transportation in Los Angeles. Will there be a movement away from freeways? A couple of months ago I read an article about Elon Musk's vision to "solve" the Los Angeles traffic crisis. Musk wants to create an underground transportation system which will "remove" the hassle of traffic in everyday life. How feasible is this? Will Elon Musk's plan only be accessible to the upper-class? Boycotting freeways will not help us create solutions. We need more unconventional engineers and dreamers similar to Musk.
ReplyDelete