Analysing Social Difference: Rodeo and Beverly Hills

This week I decided to visit the famous shopping street, Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. This was an amazing place.

On our walk up to Rodeo Drive the streets were bustling with people the roads were congested with cars, but on arrival this whole atmosphere changed. The street was extremely peaceful and quiet, with very few cars even on the roadside, let alone driving past. The pavements were very wide and the streets were decorated with Christmas lights and there was even Christmas music playing from speakers all along the drive. Each shop stocked some of the top designer labels including Prada and Hugo Boss, all of which seemed very empty.  The exclusive nature of the shopping street almost seemed too exclusive because no one was going into them. It seemed like these shops were more there for show rather than to sell their products. Outside one the shops was this custom Bugatti which is worth around $1million.  

 

This week I wanted to use simplymap.com to identify the areas of wealth across Los Angeles and having visited Rodeo Drive that day, I wanted to use product markets to identify these variations.

The map above indicates the area of Beverly Hills has a very high luxury product market. There is a “concentration of the rich” (David Harvey). Comparing these figures with other areas of LA, it is clear to see that North West LA is home to the richest people in the city, those most willing to purchase luxury items. When focusing on the higher priced product market it is interesting to see that the area of Beverly Hills is in the lowest percentile. (Below) This emphasises how rich the population is in this North-West area because their demand to buy higher priced products is pretty low.  

This week I wanted to look at David Harvey’s ‘the urban process of capitalism’ which ties in with the creative destruction that has arisen from the Neo-liberal society as I feel this is appropriate for the area of Beverly Hills. Walking down Rodeo drive I felt a feeling of exclusion. At each doorway we passed stood a guard blocking the entry to the stores; many of the stores even had their doors locked and they had to open them every time to let people in. In the view of Harvey, the capitalists who “operate in a world of Individualism” have created this area. The upper class individuals act upon their own ‘self-interest’ and those who are able to purchase expensive clothing have created a socially exclusive area for the rich and the guards prevent free entry for the many of the less well-off citizens.  The Bourgeoisies (in Marxian terms) have seemed to privatise this area of Beverly Hills and prevent the lower class citizens to enter.

This development of Rodeo Drive and other upper class shopping areas, I feel, has been a direct result of neo-liberalism. It was developed in the 1970’s; around the time neo-liberalism came into fashion in the US. In reference to David Harvey, (2006) “there is an increasing variation between the rich and poor in society” as a result of neo-liberalism and it “has been a huge success for the upper class.” Both of these statements are true for LA and we have seen an increasing inequality between the rich of Beverly Hills and the poor of Inglewood. Not just in Beverly Hills, but there has been growing social inequalities created by neo-liberalism all over the developed world.

Harvey, D (2009), The process under Capitalism.

Harvey, D., 2006: Neo-liberalism as creative destruction. Geogr. Ann., 88 B (2): 145–158. 

Analysing Social Difference- Ontario

For my Last response I decided to comment on Patricia's week 6 blog about Ontario:

http://everydayurbanenvironment.blogspot.com 

Hi Patricia

For my last response I wanted to find a unique post on an area outwith the popular regions surrounding UCLA. I spent a while reading your blog and was very intrigued by your week 6 visit to Ontario.

By looking at the map of Ontario, there are 2 features that dominate the landscape, the airport and the vast amounts of farmland in the South of the city. Having not visited the area, and not knowing very much about it, I looked at some of the city’s history and the found that the city grew up as an agricultural based city that accounts for the large farmland that still exists.

More importantly, the warehouses and factories located just outside the city centre suggest obvious examples of the “third urban revolution” as manufacturing dominated for a long period after World War 2. During this time there would have been large urbanisation and much of the city would have moved to manufacturing production. I find this area very similar Edinburgh in Scotland, the place I grew up. There are also a number of large industrial buildings in the inner city and most of the city centre now is dominated by large service industries which have causes the gradual decline, and in many cases closures, of the old manufacturing industries. This leaves the factories and warehouses unused and in many cases in Edinburgh, more commercial buildings are replacing them.

The city of Ontario has experienced a large amount of urban sprawl and the vast majority of housing in moving outwith the city centre. This brings me onto your point about the Emergence of Post-suburbia. Like we have seen in LA, many of the post suburban areas are also experiencing this move to post suburbia. In (Kling, Olin, Poster) they suggest that the area is not becoming decentralized by it is just becoming multi-centered. The inclusion of the automobile has placed an important role in this process. Many people are now living in the suburbs and travel into the commercial center to work. This encourages business to move out to the suburban areas due to the large demand out of the city and it tends to be more cost-effective for the business. This has happened a lot recently in Edinburgh and there has been a large growth in out-of-town shopping centers. They are much more attractive to people living out with the city because there is free and available parking and you don’t have to deal with the traffic congestion going into the city center.

"[Ontario] is currently under planning to be developed into a mixed-used area of residential homes, industrial and business parks, and town centers.”

This quote above helps emphasize Ontario’s plan to move towards a multi-centered city. It suggests that they already have plans to great a multi-centered city. From a social point of view, this may present a few issues for the local authorities, because if there is more than one city center being created then it may create segregation between the areas. One center may account for the bourgeoisie population, leaving another area to suffer problems of social exclusion and poverty. “We no longer live in a spatial form of centrality, like an edge city, but a sprawling region of development with many separate centers with their own levels of functional specialization.” Some areas may therefore be more specialised than others and may result in more poor quality housing located in that specific area. Furthermore, this might spark segregation and conflict between neighbouring centres.

In summary, I agree fully with your view on the urban progress of Ontario. Like many US cities and small communities, they are all experiencing urban sprawl and the creation of suburban cities that grow up around the housing communities and in area of cheaper land.