Riots in Urban Areas

As we learned in class, there has been a history of riots taking place in urban areas. Especially in the US, there has been a longstanding history of riots. These acts of civil disorder take place because a group of people become frustrated and, at times, feel forced to resort to violence. Some reasons for the beginning of a riot include poor working conditions, oppression, conflicts between ethnic groups, and government. Riots can range from being relatively harmless all the way to violent and extremely dangerous. Riots are definitely an issue that needs to be addressed. I personally think the best method of this would be preventative measures rather than dealing with effects after a riot. For instance, addressing potential issues such as racial conflicts prior to the outbreak of a riot in urban areas would be best in order to ensure a riot does not occur.

A particularly violent prison riot from the Riot Spreadsheet we worked on in class Tuesday, the New Mexico Penitentiary Riot, took place on February 2 and 3, 1980. Rioting inmates held officers hostage, and took to gruesome acts of violence such as beating, stabbing, and raping. Overall, 33 inmates lost their lives, and least 90 inmates suffered serious injuries. The outbreak is said to have occurred due to security breeches, lack of training for guards, prisoners’ anger and frustration, and disregard of warning signs. As I mentioned above, the deterrence of this tragedy (and others similar to it in the future) lies in preventative measures like attentiveness to warning signs and proper training for all guards and officials.

Here is an interesting link to America’s most destructive riots of all time. Most have a common theme of frustration or conflict between demographic groups that has played a significant role in their occurrence. I believe these destructive riots should truly be an important concern for the government to address, especially in urban areas. If appropriate preventative measures are taken to address the range of reasons causing riots before an outbreak occurs, America will be a safer and much more peaceful place.

Running Riot

            The emergence of riots is an important issue to note when discussing urban public issues because of the damage it can do to cities, both physically and psychologically. The financial burdens resulting in riot-caused destruction of property can weigh heavily on individuals and the government. Furthermore, riots are prone to leave the city in an emotional state of disarray. Group associations shaped by the riot can leave the city divided long after the dust has settled. In her article here, Gabrielle Pickard comments on the cultural effects of the August 2011 riots in England. She notes that public opinion on immigration and minority groups has actually reduced in approval. Riots can also be detrimental will be new perceptions of the city based on violence that can deter future residents and businesses from taking root.

In Steven Wilkinson’s article “Riots” he discusses how important rumors are for initiating and escalating a riot. This becomes increasingly important when such a large portion of the population uses social networking sites that can advance rumors exceptionally fast and efficiently. Similar to the idea of rumors instigating riots, is the idea of other groups of people being inspired by a riot and reproducing it – in essence the “monkey see, monkey do” effect. We have seen in recent years this effect being particularly prominent in countries in the Middle East. This can create a domino effect within a nation or spread to other nations. Jennifer Jackson commented in a post about whether the England riots would ignite tensions in the U.S. She speculated at the time, because of the high unemployment and debt problems that the possibility of a public outbreak would be high; fortunately, as we have seen, this did not occur. 

An image from the London riots. From http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2011/08/08/144661-london-riots.jpg.

Week 12 Shrinking Cities & Ecological Unconscious

 

For some reason, I believed that all cities were growing. I hadn’t considered the possibility of population decline in urban areas, which is the case in major cities across the world. The loss of jobs in one place obviously causes movement of people to a place with employment, but I naively assumed cities were exempt from this rule since the city itself would still remain. Sports complexes, museums, restaurants, and other public buildings would not be abandoned in a city, but without an industry, the need for these spaces disappears. The controversy over how to handle the vacated areas seems complicated, and only a few hopeful ideas are emerging. A sustainable city would be capable of adapting to fluxes in population, but most cities, especially older cities, were not designed with sustainability in mind. The link below describes a straight-forward plan to make the DC area more sustainable.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2009/08/21/d-c-city-government-considers-cash-for-close-in-urban-living/

This plan moves employees closer to their work establishment. It also promotes the use of public transportation.

The ecological unconscious is a term I had not heard before this class. I took a writing course that emphasized the important bond between man and nature, but I am still surprised that society can, and will, recognize the relationship. I believe nature is the most important affecter of human life and also the most ignored. Hopefully more merit will be given to the idea that the Earth is intertwined with the human being.

A superfund site in Michigan for liquid disposal >> these are the types of structures that may ultimately wake up your ecological unconscious

Driven To Spend (Sprawling)

Mix of land uses, clustering and centeredness, compactness; all of these things are different indications and instances of sprawl. Sprawl drives up the cost of transportation for households because greater distances between destinations and lack of transportation sources. Sprawling is more of a problem in suburban areas where there are gated communities or neighborhoods that have been established in places where there is uncultivated land and nothing around for miles at a time which causes the homeowners there to have to travel long distances to get to what they need and where they need to be. This causes households to have to own and operate more than one automobile. In more metropolitan areas the sprawl is not that expensive because there are more choice of transportation, through buses, taxis, subway systems, walking, or biking. With transportation cost being so high, households are not benefiting or gaining any value in property from buying vehicles the way they would have if they bought a house instead which increases in property value overtime. More people need to pick home where they save money on driving and are in a good neighborhood that suits the needs of their families and their lifestyle. Transportation is expensive regardless of where you live, but a difference in the prices can vary. Having to transport yourself in your own vehicle cost much more than taking the bus, taxi, or subway. When you use public transportation, you pay the standard fare and get to where you need to go. With your own vehicle you have to pay for gas, tune-ups, repairs, up-keep, and maintenance. Those cost add up and increase the amount of money being spent on transportation. Sprawling does nothing to help low income families, it effects them the most and the hardest, they spend about 36% of their income on transportation after taxes.

"Pros and Cons of Urban Sprawl"

http://homeguides.sfgate.com/pros-cons-urban-sprawl-1717.html