I took a general walk through the neighborhood to find a broad sense of the vibe in the city. I felt that the most interesting thing was the architecture. Throughout parts of the city, there seems to be a lot of older looking Victorian-esque structures that create a quaint sense of culture. The distinction is that in this neighborhood, there seems to be a variety of buildings, but one particular ‘row home’ design seem to be the popular building style more a number of residences and small businesses. Another observation I made, was that there seem to be a popularity for bright colors, that make these particular buildings to reflect the modern urban appeal. Some of the more expensive looking buildings carried an appeal as well, but I am somewhat more interested in the contrast of a ‘fancy’ style in different rhetorical situations throughout the neighborhood.
I have chosen to archive this menu because it provides more insight into the current popular restaurant culture that makes the neighborhood of 14th and U as interesting as it is. I had read up on the area just last night, that 14th and U area has been central to a ‘foody’ scene, for a long time. What I want to know is how some of these more legitimate, or well-presented restaurants get to be as successful as they are. For example how the zoning and other factors allow for them to appear, and be very successful. Another understanding I would like to explore is how some businesses that appear ‘hip’ the way that this place does, and be in a good location, manage to not do so well.
I was walking around the 14th and U st area and saw some pretty cool buildings. I had heard someone walking by and ask “are those apartments or condos”? Well, I would like to know how many of those who live here are renting apartments temporarily perhaps for work, and how many of these are purchased condos. As far as the expense, If I remember correctly from reading S Street Rising, I believe that this area would have been a bit cheaper than most of the DC areas at a time. it has clearly been gentrified since. It is hard to tell with this building style at this point if these are deluxe or more standard. However, judging from everything else built in this section of the neighborhood, these particular residences, appear to be on the less expensive side of the spectrum. I simply would like to learn more about why some parts of the city may be more expensive to live in than others.
I found one of the local menus. The food scene here seems to be targeted toward a much younger audience. I would say that a lot of the food appears to be reasonably priced and with a lot of focus on ethnic flavors. also, this part of the neighborhood appears to very much for the bar and cafe scene.I would like to know how much of the neighborhood is original and how much was redone, when. If I am to dive deeper into the “heart” of DC, I would need to know more background the survival of some businesses, displacement and the irregularity of the gentrification–why some parts look newer, but not quite as nice as others, and how this relates to the overall food scene.
On my investigation of the U street and 14th Street neighborhood, this “Sounds of the City” flyer reminded me of the vibrant music scene in DC, which some would say is part of the “heart” of DC.I would like to further investigate the types of music that are played in the area and what types of people usually go to these shows. I have been pretty familiar with the punk scene in DC. It has been pretty strong for several decades now. In addition, I would be interested to know how some of the most popular music venues in the area became so famous. This might explain some of the history of the DC area and why some of these streets became so active.
Why We Basically Cannot Prosecute Architectural Exclusion on civil rights grounds:
IN text citations with page numbers
In section one of Sarah Schindler’s Architectural Exclusion “Architectural Exclusion:Theory” she carefully explains some of the ways that cities have been designed to favor more privileged groups of people. She first references some of the more overt ways that people have managed to discriminate against “undesirable” groups, then shifts toward more covert and hard to prove ways discrimination has occurred. Some of the common themes were “norms”, “regulation”, “legal”, and “civil engineering”. Sarah Schindler develops the claim that it may be very difficult to “tell” when architectural discrimination is present. In addition how over history there has been enough anecdotal evidence to support the fact that it has been there. She also provides background as to how it has been addressed in the past and why it is so often overlooked. The overall purpose is to explain how legally ambiguous any case against architectural exclusion can be and why it is dangerous to ignore this fact.
The first piece of evidence Schindler provides for why architectural discrimination is as big of an issue as it is, is because it is not given very much legal attention “People used the law by passing ordinances … encouraged some to threaten undesirable persons “with violence if they were to enter or remain in certain spaces.” and continuing “The first two methods of discrimination have received sustained attention from legal scholars; the third form, which I refer to as architecture, has not. This Part departs from tradition by focusing on architecture instead of ordinances and social norms.” The problem with architectural discrimination is that is very difficult to notice. Civil engineers are hired to simply design the most efficient and effective designs for a city. How the city is designed is up to their discretion. Any divisiveness often does not go noticed because other more obvious types of discrimination are easier to spot.
Schindler continues her assertion that architectural discrimination has actually been studied and has been found to be a real issue whether it has been legally regulated or not.One of the supports that Schindler provides is that law is not the only way that people are discriminated against. To further her assertion she shares that though the built environment does not explicitly appear as any discriminatory law, the actions of any design that influences the behavior of civilians can directly exclude different groups of people. However, even though there is extensive understanding of some of the ways that architectural exclusion occurs, there seems to be very little action to deter or discourage it.
Schindler continues into detail about some of the ways that architectural discrimination is studied to provide a bigger picture as to why this is such a huge issue. Schindler clearly wants to impress upon the reader that there are many ways that the city can be structured to provide “amenities” for favorable groups and divide the city. In addition to this, she is able to provide a much more detailed explanation as to why it is legally gray to take any recourse toward those who are doing this. One of the reasons is because the law does not provide any real way to combat discrimination. There are laws regulating the zoning, however, there is not a lot of civil rights information, allowing for some serious loopholes. Simply put, even though there are very consistent regulations against explicit discrimination; it is very difficult to find any violation through architectural means, and because of this there have been some very extensive civil cases. The main issue with any recourse being taken was that the amount of evidence needed has been nearly impossible to collect because of the ambiguous laws.Because of this, there has not been a lot that could be done to stop architectural discrimination.
Formal MLA Citation
In Chapter two of David Fleming’s City of Rhetoric “the Placelessness of Political Theory,” he focuses on the dangers of overgeneralizing the individual citizen, and how political theory can sometimes destroy the beauty of unique human time, and place. His main objective is to emphasize the importance of “commonplaces” in defining the identity of an individual.Fleming makes the case that though we have favored the individual most of the time, however, we have not been able to build a proper bridge between our inherent differences. He defines many different ways in which political theory defines us as people, relative to the contexts in which we reside.
In “the citizen” Fleming first presents the simple fact that the individual freedoms have generally been accepted as “inviolable. A hallmark of modern liberal thought, in fact, is the belief that the citizen is the prior and primary political phenomenon… The state, by this reasoning, is a creation of the people, not the other way around” (19;Ch.2). He, however, asserts that the efforts that have been made to allow for these “inalienable rights” have ignored the reality that humans are inherently different, and any effort to whitewash this, has to lead to exclusive behaviors. At this point, he adamantly states that this “bracketing” creates an image of only one type of citizen. In turn excluding the inevitable reality, of human differences. Fleming does continue that our common human attributes do bring us together, but in order to allow for us to come together, we cannot ignore personal identity.
“The places of political theory” suggests that because we as human beings have become more attracted to “despatialization”. He puts a specific emphasis on how this has manifested in modern technological advantages, “an awesome technological destruction of distance,” ( 23; ch.2) he argues that even though we feel more connected to the world now than ever before, we have also lost our unique presence. Fleming continues his assertion that because we are so driven to connect with the outside world, our political presence is not grounded in a particular space and time. Fleming disagrees with this because he believes that the human identity is relative to a particular time and space more than anything else, and he believes that this travel and interconnectedness takes us as human beings away from “home”.Fleming addresses that individual rights are inherent, but moe-so defined by the way we as people deal with differences. In addition, he argues that our true identity has more to do with our ability to be grounded in what he describes as “fortuitous association” or the deep association with a connection to places within a short “common” area, instead of being a “pilgrim” in many places with today’s technology.
In “republicanism” Fleming introduces the political theory of self-governing of societies by the ordinary citizens. In this system, there would be no individual interests, no personal time and space, but simply selfless efforts for the greater good, Republicanism is based on the idea of general participation, but not personal identity. For this reason, Fleming appears to favor liberalism. Not only is Flemming demanding that republicanism does not allow the private identity as he prefers, he addresses the simple fact that the ethical needs of the entire community, is far too much to place on the shoulders of any one person. In contrast, he addresses “liberalism” in which individual rights are placed above all else. He then mentions that “liberalism” promotes an “ethical apathy. In addition, he feels that “republicanism” is spatial, or grounded in the built environment, while “liberalism” is more “temporal”, or less grounded in a built environment.
Finally, to tie these ideas together, he addresses that in the most modern situation, it has become very difficult to
Fleming, David. “Part One: Chapter Two, The Placelessness of Political Theory” City of Rhetoric, CITY SUNY Press 2008. (PAGE NUMBERS USED) .