When I first started the reading, I thought that studying the residential landscapes of these socioeconomic groups was very limiting. I didn’t think they would be able to base findings on a study of this one aspect alone. Why not incorporate other landscapes into the equation? Then as I read it became clear that there were other landscapes included (church, clubs, schools, etc.). It amazed me that there weren’t any common landscapes among these two groups of people. Both groups have developed separate landscapes which value different things and for the most part operate independently (CIDs). They have both constructed gates which keep the other from entering, whether it’s through geographic, social or economic means.
The lots sizes afford the Alpha’s the ability to impact the immediate environment around their dwelling. This is a privilege the Beta’s do not enjoy. This is why the Alpha’s are more concerned with their gardens and Beta’s their houses. This is a great example of the affluent having more of an impact on their environment than others because of the opportunity the large lots sizes afford.
It seems the Alpha group is stereotyping others in the community and passing this onto their children. This isn’t to say that someone can’t break these stereotypes with conformity. The Alphas spend a great deal of resources maintaining their social network. Protecting what they have deemed important to the group.
I would be interested to see what these communities are like today. Are there any other landscapes to bridge the gap? Is there any common threat that would have an adverse affect on both groups which would force them to commingle? These landscapes are ever changing and evolving though sometimes it seems at a snails pace.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Scott,
I, too, was curious about what the community was like today. I did some digging into the census data from 2000 and come up with some answers.
Median Age: 37.4
Race: 87.5% White
Education: 23.9% reached graduate school
Ancestory: I thought it was interested that there is still a large Italian population with 19% stating Italian ancestory.
Industry: 0.4% work as farmers. I guess Duncan was right that no one wanted to live on a farm.
Median Income: 118,820
This data was from 2000 so I am sure it's changed even more. It's interesting to see what has stayed the same.
Annie
It surprises me that the median age is 37.4. I would have thought this was much older. Perhaps this area has "turned over"? Or perhaps the children were moving into mom and dad's place once they retired. The median income of 118,200 seems fairly good but not as affluent as I would have expected. Perhaps home/property values haven't been keeping up with national averages. Thanks for the additional info!
Post a Comment