Neil Smith in his chapter, “New City, New Frontier”, explores the contrived duality between aggressive urban development and taming the wiles of the frontier. Despite historically ruinous consequences, rapid urban development has been seen by many as necessary for ushering in a new, “controllable”, or appropriate population of people. Acting exclusively in the interests of the power elite, urban development is likened to frontier explorations of white men “discovering” and subsequently taking land to which they were convinced they were entitled. This paradigm acts as a means to both justify mass urban “renewal” and legitimize the authority pursuing its interests. The myth that European settlers conquered the New World is substantiated by few general assumptions: that Europeans are civilized men looking to tame the uncivilized, that white men are the ultimate authority of all things, and that existing or indigenous ways of living were wrong and in need of correcting. That these assumptions are communicated and reinforced in the ways in which individuals identify themselves indicates how pervasive they are in our culture and society.
The European settlers of the ‘New World’ assumed a divine right to the land they encountered. The further assumption that the native people of the land had no means to claim it drove the settlers to a greed-fueled land grab, wholly justified by the simple fact that they were white men. The pursuit to develop the untamed urban jungle is inextricably linked to the pursuit to tame the American frontier. Smith uses the fight for Tompkins Square Park as an example of how the interests of powerful white men are used as the means to justify claiming ownership of spaces where the question of ownership isn’t even addressed. According to Smith, Tompkins Square Park was “unremarkable” in its form but that’s what made it a “fitting locale for a ‘last stand’ against gentrification and the new urbanism”. (68). Its banality made it an unlikely but explosive site for protests against urban development. Residents and patrons of the park who were homeless, unemployed, young, and people of color, believed that the force with which the city attempted to regain control of the park was unnecessary. Violent protests and riots against police at the park were met largely with bewilderment… what was so important about this one park? Why was the city so invested in the happenings of that one park?
The simple answer is that Tompkins Square park was in the middle of a development plan to renew the area (Christodora Condos) and the riff-raff that frequented the park just didn’t fit in with the planned demographic. However, one can argue that as the real estate in the area steadily increased in value that the resistors of Tompkins Square Park would eventually be priced out entirely and give up the fight in search of more accessible spaces. However, the extreme density of NYC leaves finding more accessible spaces nearly impossible. Tompkins wasn’t just a community watering hole, it became a physical symbol of the resistance; a reminder that no matter the circumstances, all humans, all New Yorkers are entitled to appropriate housing. The temporary housing built inside the park and subsequently in lots near the park served as irrefutable evidence of a housing crisis in the city. The city’s then attempt to forcibly remove this inevitable population of people exposed the hypocrisy of it all. Here the city’s interests lie with the developers of luxury condominiums that would completely out-price the community. City funds were spent, not on remedying the situation for the homeless, but on securing the ownership rights to the areas in question (i.e. $2.3 million spent immediately on “fortifying” the park). As in the case of the American frontier, the narrow power elite with the assistance of the governing body managed to discount the interests of a pre-existing community as a means to an end; an end where the consequences are exponentially great. In the case of Tompkins Square Park, the city prevailed with a leveraged responsibility to the displaced community, however, action on this responsibility remains largely stagnant as the population homeless and disenfranchised New Yorkers continues to rise with each day.
The entrenched mythologies that keep the United States unequal are always so mystifying! The frontier myth, the American Dream, the Horatio Alger myth of hard work and entrepreneurship, rugged individualism, the streets paved with gold — the list goes on. Why do you think these can be so powerfully mobilized even in the 20th century — indeed, even in the 21st? I think a lot of it has to do with the already racially compromised concept of Lockean self-possession and labor. If we believe that one’s fate is one’s own (self-possession) and that one’s labor is the prerequisite for wealth, then we can go on believing that poverty means one made bad choices and did not work hard enough. Perhaps that’s why it was easier to disperse the people living in Tompkins Square park than to begin to solve the reasons for why they were homeless or, in many cases, jobless?