In response to Javier's first question, and to Avila's closing summations at the end of the book, I find it helpful to think creatively about how communities that are not white and affluent engage in development. Keeping in mind the holistic reparative project accomplished by The Folklore of the Freeway, our class should be wary in applying dichotomous ideas to urban planning and look instead at the elasticity of these actions. In particular, I find the phenomenon of gentefication, where wealthier second and third generation Mexicans Americans are going back to their parents' neighborhoods and buying up old property. (most notably in the Boyle Heights region discussed in Avila's book) A riff on the term "gentrification," it nonetheless draws striking parallels between what Chicanos did with the freeways in the 1970s and 80s. This gentefication is indeed motivated by a sense of historical preservation and cultural patrimony, but also tensions between different generations and class backgrounds. We can envision this process as the next step in the processes delineated by Avila. It necessarily takes into consideration the spaces created by the freeway and claims to ownership by the people moving in and out of them. I encourage our class discussion to move past the binarism of white-non-white urban development to better consider the complexities within a given community/ethnic/political space.

Some articles on gentefication:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/us/los-angeles-neighborhood-tries-to-change-but-avoid-the-pitfalls.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/multiamerican/2011/12/28/7605/the-cultural-mashup-dictionary-gentefication/

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/lifestyle/2014/02/07/in-taking-back-urban-areas-latinos-are-causing-gente-fication-across-us/

This page comments on:

Comment on this page