i appreciate this sentiment (i am lying) but this is middle class hyper-righteousness at its worst; it may stir people but it’s not useful/practical. i don’t pretend to write from anything but a similar middle class view, but there is a way to be self-aware.
there are a lot of problems with this post (for one: “When you take everyone out of a neighborhood and leave a few under-educated poor people behind by themselves, the neighborhood will become ridden with crime and poverty.” cringe cringe cringle krinkle), but one thing i want to draw out about this post and they way it posits the “urban experience”
consumption. it’s all about consumption. in this blog, OTR is a “product” that suburban folk don’t have the correct “taste” (i am wrinkle-browed quizzical with this thought :::::: bourdieu…maybe? my recall of bourdieu’s “taste” concept is bad) to appreciate. they need to be educted to consume/buy into OTR right. to the blog person, this involves promoting travel (A DISTINCTLY MIDDLE CLASS ACTIVITY – OH I AM SO TIRED OF HEARING PLATITUDES ABOUT TRAVEL – GOING TO SOME LOCALE DOESN’T [consistently] DO MUCH EXCEPT REINFORCE THE ECONOMICIZATION [vacation = spend lots of money time] of experiences with people who are not middle class whites) or diversifying the “heritage/preservation” concept. as this blog-knight sees it, OTR is being misbranded by certain parties, and this need to be rectified prontissimo.
OTR is not a “product”, nor is any other neighborhood (let’s not whitewash blue ash or west chester and cover up the diversity in those places – blog-samurai does what he says his suburban opponents are doing by grossly stereotyping them – ignore strategic partners at your peril ). it is a place, and let’s distinguish that from its marketing.
eck, i’m reading this “consumption” idea into the post slightly because i have been thinking on it in general, but it’s there.