Quick Review: In the Neighborhood

Earlier this year, various media outlets discussed a book where the adult author decides to ask his neighbors if he can sleep over. I recently read this book, In the Neighborhood: The Search for Community, One Sleepover at a Time by Peter Lovenheim, and have some thoughts about it.

1. First, a quick summary. Lovenheim, a journalist, lives on a wealthy street in a suburb of Rochester, New York. After a murder-suicide in the neighborhood, he realizes that he doesn’t know any of his neighbors, even after growing up on the street and having moved back to the street as an adult. To rectify this, he decides to ask his neighbors if he can sleep over in order to build relationships.

2. There is a lot of pop sociology in this book as it includes short discussions about suburban houses and whether they encourage neighborliness, the book Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam, and social capital. These short segments give his actions some context but they do not go into much depth.

3. Even with his persistent actions, he still doesn’t build strong relationships with too many people. A number of neighbors turn him down including one guy who keeps repeating that he “is a very private person.” Overall, he seems to build relationships with people who tend to agree with him that it is unfortunate that people don’t know their neighbors.

4. Two factors lead me to wonder whether the outcomes of the book could be found elsewhere:

a. Lovenheim admits briefly that he might have been motivated to do this because of a recent separation with his wife. Would he act differently if still married? Would people react to him differently if he were married or seen as a family man compared to being a single father?

b. He lives on a wealthy street: his neighbors tend to be doctors, lawyers, and motivated professionals. A constant theme is that people on the street don’t want their privacy to be invaded; would other places be more open or friendly?

5. In the end, this is another book that laments the loss of community in America. The difference here is the author attempts to do something (however small) about it and his life is enriched. Towards the end of the book, Lovenheim tries to add some stories of others reaching out to their neighbors but this felt contrived compared to his personal narrative.

Overall, I would say this was an interesting, yet light, read. Those looking for large solutions to community life in America are likely to be disappointed but Lovenheim’s interactions with a variety of people in the neighborhood is entertaining.

Shopping malls and noise devices to discourage loitering

A shopping mall in Washington D.C. has installed a noise device, the Mosquito, to discourage loitering:

The owners of the Gallery Place commercial strip have installed an anti-loitering noise device — one to discourage any loiterers, not just teens. Gallery Place has further urged the D.C. Council to pass an anti-loitering ordinance, something the city currently lacks.

Youths in particular are said to be sensitive to a greater range of high-pitch sounds. But Gallery Place Partners, LLC, insists they did not install the “state-of-the-art safety feature” to target teens alone. According to Gallery Place, the Mosquito installed in the Metro plaza is set to a tone that can be heard by people of all ages.

I recall reading that prior attempts to install such devices were accused of being targeted at teenagers because they can better hear and are therefore more annoyed with high-pitched noise-making devices. It sounds like this shopping center is pitching the device as a boon for all users – but are teenagers still the main target?

But this is also a reminder that shopping malls are not public spaces. Even though they are often function as such as place with crowds gathering just to hang out, they are privately owned and the owners are ultimately interested in making money.

Bonus: a link at the bottom of the news story to that takes you to the makers of the Mosquito where you can then find how annoying you find the Mosquito!

Chicago police and meeting with gangs

When the story came out last week that Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis had met with gang leaders to deliver a warning that the police would crack down if the violence continued, I wondered if there would be some backlash. Many people looking at this story might be incredulous: why didn’t the police just arrest the gang members? If they know who the people are who are responsible for the violence, why not crack down already? Why are the Chicago police negotiating with gangs?

Mayor Daley defended Weis today:

The mayor, who faces re-election in February, has been trying to address criticism about continued violence on city streets. One approach has been to send Weis out for more public appearances to talk about crime…

Today, Daley likened the idea to the negotiations between war combatants.

“It’s a good concept. You’ll sit down with anyone,” Daley said. “We’ll negotiate after the Second World War. We’ll negotiate with anyone to have peace. Even during the war. So you sit down with anyone. If you can save one life, if I can save your son’s life, you’d want me to sit down with them,” the mayor said.

While this may not convince people (just read the comments after the story), the story behind such negotiations is much more complicated. Sudhir Venkatesh’s research about poor Chicago neighborhoods reveals that the police and the gangs actually have a relationship. Gang members may be partaking in criminal activities but they are also active, powerful, and important actors in their community. It is not as simple as just going in and arresting everyone.

The TV show The Wire illustrates this gray area. In the series, the police are generally after the leaders of the gangs, the guys in charge. They could crack down on the small-time dealers or runners but others just pop into place. While the crack-downs may look good for the media (and outsiders looking in), it doesn’t solve the larger problems.

Both Venkatesh’s research and The Wire suggest the problems of these neighborhoods are deeper than the gang activity. There are persistent problems of poverty, a lack of jobs, a lack of opportunities, poor schools, broken infrastructure, and isolation from the outside world. How to solve these issues and the problems of gangs is difficult – and would require a much broader perspective than just counting the number of crimes, arrests, and meetings between the police and gangs.

The return of electric streetcars to American cities

USA Today reports that electric streetcars may be on the comeback in American cities. Because of a successful line introduced in Portland in the early 2000s, other cities, such as Dallas, Cincinnati, and Charlotte, are looking to build new streetcar lines with the help of federal dollars.

The irony of these new streetcar lines is that many American cities had effective electric streetcar systems in the past. The article provides a little of the history:

Horse-drawn streetcars appeared on urban streets in the early 1800s and were replaced by electric versions in the 1880s and 1890s, says Jerry Kelly of the Baltimore Streetcar Museum. In the 1930s, when the Great Depression put many people out of work, ridership fell. After a brief revival during World War II, affordable automobiles and cheap gas prompted many cities to pave over streetcar tracks, he says.

According to Kenneth Jackson in Crabgrass Frontier, the streetcars declined rapidly for several reasons:

1. The rise of the automobile, particularly in the 1920s. Millions of Americans bought cars.

2. Many streetcar lines were locked into cheap fares. Because many of the lines had been granted government licenses to operate, the fares were locked in for long periods. By the 1920s, many lines could only charge five cent fares when the costs of operating had risen. This led to less profit for the streetcar operators.

3. Public opposition to public subsidies for electric streetcar lines. While roads were viewed as a public good and deserving of government money, electric streetcars were viewed as private enterprises.

4. General Motors bought up a number of bankrupt or near bankrupt lines in the 1930s-1940s and replaced the streetcars with buses. While some see this as a conspiracy against mass transit, Jackson suggests streetcar lines were already in serious trouble and GM hastened their demise.

Overall, Jackson suggests the declining ridership plus the low fares and lack of government money meant that streetcar lines could not keep up: less riders meant less profit which meant fewer modernization efforts which lowered ridership further and so on.

Suburban budget cuts lead to volunteer opportunities

Many suburban communities have had budget difficulties in the last few years, leading to staffing cuts and other measures.

Naperville, Illinois, a prosperous Chicago suburb, had some similar issues. Because of some of the staffing cuts, the city is now looking for volunteers to help out at City Hall:

The pilot Municipal Volunteer Program is still accepting applications, said Community Relations Manager Nadja Lalvani, and has already drawn the interest of about a dozen people. Currently, the city is looking to fill a vacant front desk at city hall that used to be occupied by a greeter, but due to budget cuts, the position was eliminated…

The front-desk position at city hall will be the first volunteer opportunity opened to the public, Lalvani said. The greeter will be responsible for directing people to various parts of city hall, and could be trained to operate the phone switchboard in the future.

After the pilot period ends in six months, the city will evaluate the program. If all goes well, there could be more opportunities for volunteers.

Is a program like this only possible in generally well-off and well-run places like Naperville? How many citizens today would be willing to volunteer to help the local city government (as opposed to other volunteer opportunities or not volunteering at all)? Naperville does talk up its volunteer spirit so perhaps this ethos will come through and help the city fill a few positions.

South African suburbs and nature collide: humans vs. baboons

Suburban development often brings humans into what were once relatively quiet places with lots of wildlife. This is a common issue in the United States involving animals like deers and coyotes (to use a local example). According to the Telegraph, South African suburbs are now dealing with baboons:

It is not just the vineyards in South Africa which are under siege, however, but also the exclusive neighbouring suburb of Constantia, home to famous residents including Earl Spencer, Wilbur Smith and Nelson Mandela…

The baboons lived in the mountains of Cape Town long before humans took up residence, but development has forced the unlikely neighbours into increasingly closer contact.

Before laws afforded baboons a protected status a decade ago, troublesome animals were regularly killed or maimed by home owners and farmers. Now around 20 full-time “baboon monitors” are employed to protect them and guide them away from residential areas. It has proved mission impossible. Last week, a 12 year old boy was left traumatised after confronting a troop who had broken into his family home.

Hearing noises from the kitchen, he went to investigate and found the beasts ransacking cupboards. When the child fled upstairs to find his babysitter, three males gave chase and surrounded him as he made a tearful phone call to his mother, while the animals pelted him with fruit…

Chickens, geese, peacocks and even a Great Dane dog have been killed in recent weeks by the marauding baboons – the males have huge and terrifying canine teeth. Roof tiles, electric fences, orchards and vegetables gardens have been trashed.

“Lunch parties in the garden are now just impossible,” a homeowner complained. “It is so unrelaxing. Rather than chatting over our meal, we are looking over our shoulders and bolting the food as quickly as we can before it is stolen. We can’t even leave a window open in summer. We are under siege.”

In a concession to despairing residents, wildlife authorities have begun collaring baboons identified as “troublesome” and imposed a strict “three strikes” policy whereby animals which repeatedly break into homes are humanely destroyed.

The quote from the homeowner is a great example of the suburban ethos: how dare any one intrude upon our suburban safe haven. Of course, this ignores any ideas about the impact of human development on natural life.

Additionally, the best solution is have criminalized baboons operating under a three-strikes policy::? I would think there has to be some better solution.

Debating how fast high-speed rail should be

Some legislators in Illinois are questioning whether plans for 110 mph trains actually are high-speed trains. However, as you might expect, working out the details and the funding is complicated with many involved parties:

Officials at Amtrak, which has minimal expertise in operating high-speed rail, don’t see a problem topping out at only 110 mph. An infusion of billions of dollars in federal and state funding will mean better Amtrak service in the Midwest — just don’t mistake it for true high-speed trains.

The genuine article, service at up to 220 mph, is being planned in California and Florida. It already exists to a lesser degree on Amtrak Acela Express trains that get up to 150 mph on small portions of the route between Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington.

While 110 mph would be faster than current trains, there are some who argue that the speed must be dramatically increased from current levels to have the trains compete with airline travel and attract customers.


The efforts of the National Guard after Hurricane Katrina

This is an article written in 2006 but it’s a reminder of what happened behind-the-scenes in the aftermath of Katrina. Lou Dolinar focuses on the efforts of the National Guard who for several days was focused on search and rescue efforts. While these efforts were not glamorous (rationing of food and water by the National Guard at the Superdome, a lack of bathrooms), they were effective: the number of deaths was much lower than the anticipated figure of 10,000.

Dolinar summarizes the story:

FEMA failed miserably. Yet the Coast Guard, a branch of the much-maligned Department of Homeland Security, operated precisely according to plan and saved up to 30,000 lives amid near total destruction. The National Guard Bureau helped run the show. The State Guard and regular military, which owes its extraordinary professionalism to the administration’s insistence on training and equipage for service in Iraq, saved tens of thousands more.

Well worth reading in full.

h/t Instapundit

Sociologist Oldenburg responds to Facebook Places

In a recent interview, Facebook vice president of product Chris Cox, suggested that Ray Oldenburg’s work on the “third place” was behind the development of Facebook Places.

Oldenburg has responded in an email exchange with ZDNet:

“While I can appreciate that Facebook certainly helps people keep in touch with one another, I’m left to wonder why the pitch began with the 3P idea.  I got a whiff of snake oil there for the matter of how Facebook ties to 3Ps is not made clear.”

Speaking more broadly about the relationship between Facebook as a service and his ideas of place:

“I had nothing to do with Facebook and I resent the idea that it’s a “place.”  Real places unite people, electronic ones, because they are based on user choice, tend to be divisive; that is, to connect people who think alike and exclude others.  The term “virtual third place(s)” is common and most inappropriate.”Virtual” means the same in essence and effect and that is far from the truth.”

So Oldenburg is skeptical. The main issue seems to be whether this online realm is a real “place.” Public places are typically conceived as locations that all sorts of people can use. They don’t necessarily interact with each other but all can partake of it and are generally aware that there are different people around. In contrast, Facebook Places is limited to those with Facebook. Until we have a world where everyone has Facebook and has the ability to use it with a mobile device, Facebook Places is limited. There is a substantial sociological literature on the privatization of public spaces, such as parks.

Additionally, Oldenburg suggests that online communities tend to be broken down along lines of interest rather than proximity. People who like certain things tend to gather together and experience little mixing with others. These online places then become exclusive clubs. This is different than true public spaces where at least people are made aware that there are others in the world.

As ZDNet notes, Facebook is also interested in making money with these Places.

WEIRD (Western, education, industrialized, rich, democratic) people may indeed be weird

A new article in Brain and Behavioral Sciences makes a thought-provoking cross-cultural conclusion about WEIRD people:

The article, titled “The weirdest people in the world?”, appears in the current issue of the journal Brain and Behavioral Sciences. Dr. Henrich and co-authors Steven Heine and Ara Norenzayan argue that life-long members of societies that are Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic — people who are WEIRD — see the world in ways that are alien from the rest of the human family. The UBC trio have come to the controversial conclusion that, say, the Machiguenga are not psychological outliers among humanity. We are…

WEIRD people, the UBC researchers argue, have unusual ideas of fairness, are more individualistic and less conformist than other people. In many of these respects, Americans are the most “extreme” Westerners, especially young ones. And educated Americans are even more extremely WEIRD than uneducated ones…

One of the consequences of this argument that is pointed out by the authors is that WEIRD people are then a bad population for studies and experiments because the results may not be generalizable.

I wonder how average Westerners and Americans in particular would react after reading this argument. Perhaps it might fit in with some of the ideas regarding “American exceptionalism” – though whether this is good or bad could be debated.
Regardless, if other researchers agree with these conclusions, it suggests that social science studies about humanity need to be expanded across the globe. The era of the undergraduate research subject might then be over.