Chicago is a global city that has invested millions of dollars not only in the beautification of Chicago, but in the creation of tourist areas, specifically catered to catch the eye of visitors. With investments totaling up to more than $2255 million dollars with the creation of attractions such as Navy Pier, Millennium Park, the reconfiguration of Lake Shore drive, the development of the Museum Campus, the rebuilding of Soldier Field, the conversion of Mig's Field into a large park, and the development of McCormick Place into a larger convention center, the city of Chicago became one of the best known tourist hubs of the Midwest.
However, this money came from the residents of Chicago, and critics are saying that it was not worth the tax dollars we put into the projects, as Chicagoans do not use these areas nearly as much as the tourists they attract. I agree to an extent; most Chicago city dwellers spend their time in the loop carrying out errands or going to and/or from work on a daily basis. To my knowledge, not very many people go out of their way see Navy Pier or pass time in Grant Park. This may be a result of living in the city, however. If one lives their entire lives in the city, the residents come to know the ins and outs of what the city has to offer - and have most likely seen nearly all of the attractions Chicago houses at some point or another.
Critics are not, however, attacking the heart of the city,which is most likely a result of many Chicagoans using this space on a daily basis. I believe that critics are simply questioning the integrity of these million dollar spaces because most (though not all) Chicagoans typically have other things occupying their time, so they do not have time to visit recreational spaces daily. We have to remember that the city wants to attract wealthy businessmen, as we have learned from Koval. We cannot criticize business men for doing what they were brought here to do. In a way, the heart of Chicago is in fact a tourist attraction - the only difference being that people stay in the heart of Chicago, but only visit the attractions in the tourist bubble.
Furthermore, as we have learned from Koval, tourist attractions were created to generate revenue when cities were not doing so well financially. Cities needed something that they could call their own, and would attract people from all over in order to bring money into the city whilst beautifying parts of the city at the same time. Though I do not believe these areas are being used to their full potential by Chicago residents, I do believe that it was worth the effort put forth by the city of Chicago to try and bring revenue to the area and create an area of recreation.
On the other hand, however, I do believe that the city should be using the resources pulled to build these attractions to build more housing, widen the streets in the still congested areas, etc. The city itself needs a lot of work, still. Even after Burnham devised a great plan, there are still improvements to be made. However, the tourist bubble has already been created, so we must now look to the improvements of the city as a whole, and not just a specific area to shelter visitors from the real Chicago.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Teacher's Union and Machine Politics
A few weeks ago, the Sociology and Anthropology club watched a movie called Waiting for Superman. This movie followed a handful of students through their elementary journeys, through drop out factories, to the best schools in the neighborhood and even to the lottery at the best of the best schools. Parents hoping for the best education for their children, put their children's names into a lottery, leaving their education to chance.
Last week, we had a guest speaker from the teacher's union, who spoke to us about the issues facing the Chicago Public Schools, and more specifically the Pioneer's Project. This project suggests that elementary schools should lengthen their school day by 90 minutes, in order to provide additional instruction time to the students. It was surprising to learn that we not only have the shortest school day in the country, but the shortest academic year as well. Personally, I do not see a problem with extending the school day; the more education that the students can receive, the better. Children can absorb the most during the first ten years of their lives, so why not give them the opportunity to do so?
Our speaker stated that the teacher's union was asking parents to push their teachers into extending the school day for the benefit of their children. However, he noticed that if the teachers had something to say, the parents almost always supported them, whether it be for or against the extending of the school day. This showed me that it takes much, much more than the board of education to make changes in the school systems. Parents and teachers have to come together to make the best decisions for their children/students.
However, in reading Koval, I noticed something that does not sound like the children's best interests are being kept in mind. He states that in order "to attract producer and financial services, global cities must offer the lifestyle demanded by highly paid, highly skilled workers, and excellent schools are an important element" (p253). To an extent, I agree, excellent schools are definitely an important element to global cities, or any city for that matter. Despite this, I do not agree completely. When put this way, it seems as though the children's best interests are not really being kept in mind. Building "the best school" is simply a marketing tool in order to get wealthy adults into the city, bringing with them more money. However, what will happen to the school systems when the wealthy come to the city - won't the city care less about the schools and more about profit generation. Wait..this sounds familiar...I think it's because that is what is happening now.
Furthermore, as we discussed in class, the decline in the educational structure and the fight to gain a longer school day for the benefit of the students reminded me of Machine Politics. With the Pioneer's Project, $150,000 was promised to the schools, and $1300 was promised to each teacher if their school voted yes to the project. To me, this sounded a bit like the bribes used by the politicians of the democratic machine. We promise teachers and the schools more money, they promised to take care of your parking ticket or give you a job for your vote. I believe that schools should vote yes/no with the best interest of their students in mind, not because they get more money. When money comes into the picture, it becomes distorted and, unfortunately, the best interest of the students will no longer be the priority.
The teacher's union is fighting to keep CPS afloat in the declining system that we have. Students do not deserve this, and I wish more people were aware of what is going on with our children, and I say "our children" because it is our responsibility to ensure them with a chance at every opportunity that has been given to us. If we are not aware, how will we help them become successful later on in life?
Last week, we had a guest speaker from the teacher's union, who spoke to us about the issues facing the Chicago Public Schools, and more specifically the Pioneer's Project. This project suggests that elementary schools should lengthen their school day by 90 minutes, in order to provide additional instruction time to the students. It was surprising to learn that we not only have the shortest school day in the country, but the shortest academic year as well. Personally, I do not see a problem with extending the school day; the more education that the students can receive, the better. Children can absorb the most during the first ten years of their lives, so why not give them the opportunity to do so?
Our speaker stated that the teacher's union was asking parents to push their teachers into extending the school day for the benefit of their children. However, he noticed that if the teachers had something to say, the parents almost always supported them, whether it be for or against the extending of the school day. This showed me that it takes much, much more than the board of education to make changes in the school systems. Parents and teachers have to come together to make the best decisions for their children/students.
However, in reading Koval, I noticed something that does not sound like the children's best interests are being kept in mind. He states that in order "to attract producer and financial services, global cities must offer the lifestyle demanded by highly paid, highly skilled workers, and excellent schools are an important element" (p253). To an extent, I agree, excellent schools are definitely an important element to global cities, or any city for that matter. Despite this, I do not agree completely. When put this way, it seems as though the children's best interests are not really being kept in mind. Building "the best school" is simply a marketing tool in order to get wealthy adults into the city, bringing with them more money. However, what will happen to the school systems when the wealthy come to the city - won't the city care less about the schools and more about profit generation. Wait..this sounds familiar...I think it's because that is what is happening now.
Furthermore, as we discussed in class, the decline in the educational structure and the fight to gain a longer school day for the benefit of the students reminded me of Machine Politics. With the Pioneer's Project, $150,000 was promised to the schools, and $1300 was promised to each teacher if their school voted yes to the project. To me, this sounded a bit like the bribes used by the politicians of the democratic machine. We promise teachers and the schools more money, they promised to take care of your parking ticket or give you a job for your vote. I believe that schools should vote yes/no with the best interest of their students in mind, not because they get more money. When money comes into the picture, it becomes distorted and, unfortunately, the best interest of the students will no longer be the priority.
The teacher's union is fighting to keep CPS afloat in the declining system that we have. Students do not deserve this, and I wish more people were aware of what is going on with our children, and I say "our children" because it is our responsibility to ensure them with a chance at every opportunity that has been given to us. If we are not aware, how will we help them become successful later on in life?
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Chicago's Racial Divide
The issue of racial divide is one that has been around for many many years. I am not going to pretend that there is a right or wrong answer to this, because there isn't one. Hopefully, however, I can highlight a few points that contribute to the racial divide and keep it persistent throughout the decades.
One example I came across was in reading The New Chicago, where Koval states that "[Martin L. King] made residential segregation the target of his northern campaign. King looked at Chicago's vibrant central business district, the Loop, just a few miles east of the impoverished west side neighborhood where he was living, and remarked 'This is truly an island of plenty amidst an ocean of plenty'" (p83-84). This was a racial issue in the 1950's -60's, however, this is still an issue today in the modern City of Chicago as well. How long ago was it that Martin L. King made this statement? And have we listened to him?
The answer provides for a mixed response. Take Cabrini Green for example; all the high rises were taken down and new landscape/homes were built. Great, the City is doing something for those living in impoverished neighborhoods, making the "ocean of plenty" a little bit bigger, and the island a little bit smaller. In this way, more people can swim in the ocean. Great, right? ..... let's rewind for a second here. Chicago makes the ocean bigger, and the island smaller, but, where do the people on the island go, and what about those who cannot swim? Chicago's idea of fixing the impoverished neighborhoods is simply pushing them to the outskirts of the City - out of sight, out of mind. The impoverished neighborhoods are primarily (but not exclusively) Latino and African American, unfortunately making this one way in which racial divides are still present in today's Chicago.
Furthermore, Koval states that "African Americans, especially males, remain concentrated in jobs requiring little formal education beyond high school and that offer little promise of significant upward social mobility. African American women fare somewhat better...[but] both genders are grossly underrepresented in occupations that might be associated with the new economy" (p87). Because of this concentration of African Americans in the aforementioned types of jobs, they have a hard time with upward mobility, and are forced to cluster together in areas that they can afford. Lower paying jobs leads to buying homes that they can afford. The fact that African Americans are not viewed as being on the same plane as white Americans, undermines their skills and abilities completely; it is not just at all. This issue only further emphasizes the racial divides in today's Chicago - not only in housing situations, but economically as well.
Lastly, the first step towards improving/dismantling the residential segregation in the city and its suburbs is to stop pushing people to the outskirts of the city of Chicago. Our mentality is that if we don't have to see them or look at where they live, we do not have to worry about the racial divides and they will magically just go away. This attitude has been present since the 1950's and is the first thing that needs to change before any integration (neighborhood wise) can occur.
One example I came across was in reading The New Chicago, where Koval states that "[Martin L. King] made residential segregation the target of his northern campaign. King looked at Chicago's vibrant central business district, the Loop, just a few miles east of the impoverished west side neighborhood where he was living, and remarked 'This is truly an island of plenty amidst an ocean of plenty'" (p83-84). This was a racial issue in the 1950's -60's, however, this is still an issue today in the modern City of Chicago as well. How long ago was it that Martin L. King made this statement? And have we listened to him?
The answer provides for a mixed response. Take Cabrini Green for example; all the high rises were taken down and new landscape/homes were built. Great, the City is doing something for those living in impoverished neighborhoods, making the "ocean of plenty" a little bit bigger, and the island a little bit smaller. In this way, more people can swim in the ocean. Great, right? ..... let's rewind for a second here. Chicago makes the ocean bigger, and the island smaller, but, where do the people on the island go, and what about those who cannot swim? Chicago's idea of fixing the impoverished neighborhoods is simply pushing them to the outskirts of the City - out of sight, out of mind. The impoverished neighborhoods are primarily (but not exclusively) Latino and African American, unfortunately making this one way in which racial divides are still present in today's Chicago.
Furthermore, Koval states that "African Americans, especially males, remain concentrated in jobs requiring little formal education beyond high school and that offer little promise of significant upward social mobility. African American women fare somewhat better...[but] both genders are grossly underrepresented in occupations that might be associated with the new economy" (p87). Because of this concentration of African Americans in the aforementioned types of jobs, they have a hard time with upward mobility, and are forced to cluster together in areas that they can afford. Lower paying jobs leads to buying homes that they can afford. The fact that African Americans are not viewed as being on the same plane as white Americans, undermines their skills and abilities completely; it is not just at all. This issue only further emphasizes the racial divides in today's Chicago - not only in housing situations, but economically as well.
Lastly, the first step towards improving/dismantling the residential segregation in the city and its suburbs is to stop pushing people to the outskirts of the city of Chicago. Our mentality is that if we don't have to see them or look at where they live, we do not have to worry about the racial divides and they will magically just go away. This attitude has been present since the 1950's and is the first thing that needs to change before any integration (neighborhood wise) can occur.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Immigrant Chicago
In taking our tour of Pilsen, it became obvious to me that it is a largely immigrant neighborhood. Some people believe that immigrants are not beneficial to the city culturally nor economically. However, I beg to differ.
To begin with, we need to remember that this entire country was built by immigrants. There is not a single person in the city of Chicago that is really from there. Yes, they may have been born in the city, but their culture and ethnicity comes from another place entirely. Chicago was built by wave after wave of immigrants. They gave everything up in their home countries to come here and become the foundation for our country. They help the economy in more ways we realize; without them doing their jobs, other Americans would not be able to do their jobs or have what they have today, and the economy would decline dramatically. They also contribute culturally through their diversity. Chicago is known as a global city, partially, I believe due to the many cultures that are present throughout. You cannot go more than a block or two without running into an entirely different culture of people. They may be separated by neighborhood/block, but there is a large sense of heterogeneity present in the heart of the city; all the separate cultures came together to create what we know as the American culture - we are a little bit of everything.
There are also many obstacles that immigrants face as well in today's Chicago. For example, in the 1920's there was not as strict of a "document" policy, where as today you can be deported without papers, regardless of the life you have built or the family you are supporting. However, there are many similarities between the immigrant groups of today and of Chicago in the 1920's as well. For example, in Zorbaugh's Gold Coast and the Slum, he describes a second generation immigrant that was too Americanized for his family, and was too culturally similar to his family to be considered American. The second generation was put in a place where they almost had to choose between assimilating to American culture and leaving their native culture behind, and keeping their native culture alive with their family and not being accepted into American society. I feel as though today's immigrants face that same issue; how to find the balance between the two cultures without giving into or giving up one over the other. The only thing that has really changed between the immigrant waves, are the cultures that they represent; the hardships they face between creating a new life and assimilating into a new culture remain the same for the most part.
However, the immigrant experience is different for Mexicans than it was/is for white Europeans. Unfortunately, this is most likely due to their ability to assimilate into American culture much more easily than immigrant groups such as Mexicans. For example, Europeans have fair skin/hair/eyes, where as Latinos have completely different physiques. Therefore, despite the fact that Europeans, too, had cultural differences and different social norms than Americans, they were able to assimilate more efficiently than Latinos.
To begin with, we need to remember that this entire country was built by immigrants. There is not a single person in the city of Chicago that is really from there. Yes, they may have been born in the city, but their culture and ethnicity comes from another place entirely. Chicago was built by wave after wave of immigrants. They gave everything up in their home countries to come here and become the foundation for our country. They help the economy in more ways we realize; without them doing their jobs, other Americans would not be able to do their jobs or have what they have today, and the economy would decline dramatically. They also contribute culturally through their diversity. Chicago is known as a global city, partially, I believe due to the many cultures that are present throughout. You cannot go more than a block or two without running into an entirely different culture of people. They may be separated by neighborhood/block, but there is a large sense of heterogeneity present in the heart of the city; all the separate cultures came together to create what we know as the American culture - we are a little bit of everything.
There are also many obstacles that immigrants face as well in today's Chicago. For example, in the 1920's there was not as strict of a "document" policy, where as today you can be deported without papers, regardless of the life you have built or the family you are supporting. However, there are many similarities between the immigrant groups of today and of Chicago in the 1920's as well. For example, in Zorbaugh's Gold Coast and the Slum, he describes a second generation immigrant that was too Americanized for his family, and was too culturally similar to his family to be considered American. The second generation was put in a place where they almost had to choose between assimilating to American culture and leaving their native culture behind, and keeping their native culture alive with their family and not being accepted into American society. I feel as though today's immigrants face that same issue; how to find the balance between the two cultures without giving into or giving up one over the other. The only thing that has really changed between the immigrant waves, are the cultures that they represent; the hardships they face between creating a new life and assimilating into a new culture remain the same for the most part.
However, the immigrant experience is different for Mexicans than it was/is for white Europeans. Unfortunately, this is most likely due to their ability to assimilate into American culture much more easily than immigrant groups such as Mexicans. For example, Europeans have fair skin/hair/eyes, where as Latinos have completely different physiques. Therefore, despite the fact that Europeans, too, had cultural differences and different social norms than Americans, they were able to assimilate more efficiently than Latinos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)