el Guapo
Capitalist
- Messages
- 5,995
- Points
- 31
Here is something different.
http://www.time.com/time/generations/article/0,9171,1101030630-460203,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/generations/article/0,9171,1101030630-460203,00.html
-
Ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 discussion: how is the pandemic affecting your community, workplace, and wellness? 🦠
Working from home? So are we. Come join us! Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing.
Lesbian and gay retirement communities are catching on...
- Thread starter el Guapo
- Start date
PlannerGirl
Cyburbian Plus
- Messages
- 6,377
- Points
- 29
Sounds fantastic to me!
- Messages
- 13,887
- Points
- 56
ghettoizing
As a society, do we really want to further differentiate and ghettoize ourselves like this. Here in metro chicago many age restricted communities are being built only for the 55+ crowd.
I think that creating more areas of "otherness" , such as "that's where the old people live", "that's where the wealthy live", that's where the Jews have been put (circa WWII Europe)", or simply that's where 'they' live. We have heard these types of phrases all our lives.
Now I understand that people have the right to choose to live where they want, but is this the path we, as a civilization, want to continue on? Discuss.
As a society, do we really want to further differentiate and ghettoize ourselves like this. Here in metro chicago many age restricted communities are being built only for the 55+ crowd.
I think that creating more areas of "otherness" , such as "that's where the old people live", "that's where the wealthy live", that's where the Jews have been put (circa WWII Europe)", or simply that's where 'they' live. We have heard these types of phrases all our lives.
Now I understand that people have the right to choose to live where they want, but is this the path we, as a civilization, want to continue on? Discuss.
Chet
Cyburbian Emeritus
- Messages
- 10,623
- Points
- 34
Re: ghettoizing
Gays already have their own bars, resorts, cruise ships, and in most major metro areas, neighborhoods (ironically nicknamed gay ghettos). This seems a logical extension, and why not? At the national level, gays have higher per capita household incomes that straights, and have more disposable income. Why on earth would they want to mingle with the plebians in their golden years when they havent done so all their lives?mendelman said:
Jeff
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 4,161
- Points
- 27
Now how do you deed restrict these houses?
At least with the 55+ thing its pretty easy to do, and relatively easier to verify, but how do you verify if someone is FABULOUS enough to live in a certain development...well I guess you could tell by the lisp and Versace ...
To me it sounds like the local hoodlums just found a great place to hang out on Mischief Night, no doubt a development of the sort will bring trouble unto itself.
At least with the 55+ thing its pretty easy to do, and relatively easier to verify, but how do you verify if someone is FABULOUS enough to live in a certain development...well I guess you could tell by the lisp and Versace ...
To me it sounds like the local hoodlums just found a great place to hang out on Mischief Night, no doubt a development of the sort will bring trouble unto itself.
jresta
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 1,474
- Points
- 23
Re: ghettoizing
The fact that a separate gay culture came to be in the first place and continues is because they weren't welcomed in the mainstream culture . . . and for the most part, still aren't. The fact that the right to gay sex even made it to the supreme court is a testament to how strong state opposition is.
Things like "retirement communities" and "gated communities" are oxymorons. Real community is being replaced by interest groups. I'm not buying it. It's what other people see when they come to our country that makes them say things like, "wow, look how anti-social this society is. No wonder they kill each other all the time. They're terrified of one another"
It's just a shame that
a) people don't feel secure enough to live any place.
b)people don't feel more responsible for the fate of their community.
I'll have to agree with this in it's entirety.mendelman said:
The fact that a separate gay culture came to be in the first place and continues is because they weren't welcomed in the mainstream culture . . . and for the most part, still aren't. The fact that the right to gay sex even made it to the supreme court is a testament to how strong state opposition is.
Things like "retirement communities" and "gated communities" are oxymorons. Real community is being replaced by interest groups. I'm not buying it. It's what other people see when they come to our country that makes them say things like, "wow, look how anti-social this society is. No wonder they kill each other all the time. They're terrified of one another"
It's just a shame that
a) people don't feel secure enough to live any place.
b)people don't feel more responsible for the fate of their community.
- Messages
- 13,887
- Points
- 56
to jresta
Yes, you hit it! (More succinctly than I may have). I am still looking for the street/neighborhood where there are all ranges of color, race, age, sexual preference, and predilection for planning websites. That is the kind of street I want to live on.
This whole thing is a function of the term "lifestyle" which is a marketing term that needs to be axed from the lexicon.
Yes, you hit it! (More succinctly than I may have). I am still looking for the street/neighborhood where there are all ranges of color, race, age, sexual preference, and predilection for planning websites. That is the kind of street I want to live on.
This whole thing is a function of the term "lifestyle" which is a marketing term that needs to be axed from the lexicon.
Wannaplan?
Bounty Hunter
- Messages
- 3,212
- Points
- 29
Re: to jresta
Good luck. Birds of a feather flock together. Look at the history of Boston's North End and you will see why it is an enclave of Italians. Look at Mexicantown in Detroit and its historical development and you will understand why it's an enclave of Mexicans and other Latino ethnic groups.mendelman said:
- Messages
- 13,887
- Points
- 56
Re: Re: to jresta
Originally posted by Alan
Good luck. Birds of a feather flock together. Look at the history of Boston's North End and you will see why it is an enclave of Italians. Look at Mexicantown in Detroit and its historical development and you will understand why it's an enclave of Mexicans and other Latino ethnic groups.
But I think we need to make the distinction between the ghettoizing that immigrant populations perform (moving to a new country where you don't necessarily speak the language and need to become acclimated with the help of those of the same background that came before) and those who are native, but still choose to self-segregate because of preferences, age, etc. One can still prefer certain things without having to self segregate.
Originally posted by Alan
Good luck. Birds of a feather flock together. Look at the history of Boston's North End and you will see why it is an enclave of Italians. Look at Mexicantown in Detroit and its historical development and you will understand why it's an enclave of Mexicans and other Latino ethnic groups.
But I think we need to make the distinction between the ghettoizing that immigrant populations perform (moving to a new country where you don't necessarily speak the language and need to become acclimated with the help of those of the same background that came before) and those who are native, but still choose to self-segregate because of preferences, age, etc. One can still prefer certain things without having to self segregate.
Wannaplan?
Bounty Hunter
- Messages
- 3,212
- Points
- 29
Re: Re: Re: to jresta
True, true. I agree. But still, birds of a feather do flock together. How do planners stop the self-segregation? Outlaw gated communities and related developments? Could happen in some municipalities, but not all.mendelman said:
- Messages
- 13,887
- Points
- 56
Yeah! I guess that is the important part. I still must defer the freedon of choice argument. If people choose to live in these types of ways, I can't tell them not to. But think about living is a place with deed restrictions limiting it only to retired planners.
Wannaplan?
Bounty Hunter
- Messages
- 3,212
- Points
- 29
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: to jresta
No, no. I'm not saying that planners should stop self-segragation. That line you quoted was in response to mendelman saying something about how undesirable it is to have these specialized communities. You've quoted me out of context. It wasn't a declariative statement - it was a hypothetical, a rhetorical question. The clue should have been when I said "birds of a feather flock together."Chet said:
jresta
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 1,474
- Points
- 23
Re: Re: to jresta
Same thing in Port Richmond, Philly's Polish n'hood. Except the void is being filled by Puerto Ricans.
Look at New York's Little Italy - There's barely anything left of it and it's a little island surrounded by Chinatown.
Even in communities where there is still a steady stream of immigration - like Philly's Chinatown - the neighborhood is too small for the local Chinese population and it's hemmed in on all sides by freeways, a convention center, and government buildings so they've scattered to the suburbs where kids grow up dressing and talking like the white majority in their high schools.
Those communities eventually become part of mainstream america in one way or another - and it's usually by moving into the middle class and buying a house in the suburbs.
People "self-segregate" foremost by income then by racial category. But there's another layer of segregation that goes on and we're doing it right here.
When the flow of immigration to those places stops or slows to a trickle those communities disappear or are mostly diluted within a generation or two. Italians in South Philly moved en masse across the Walt Whitman Bridge and scattered themselves across suburban New Jersey. The void they left was filled by the new comers - Vietnamese and Cambodians - and now Mexicans. That's not to say there's not a strong Italian community left in South Philly but it's nowhere near what it was 50 or 100 years ago.Alan said:
Same thing in Port Richmond, Philly's Polish n'hood. Except the void is being filled by Puerto Ricans.
Look at New York's Little Italy - There's barely anything left of it and it's a little island surrounded by Chinatown.
Even in communities where there is still a steady stream of immigration - like Philly's Chinatown - the neighborhood is too small for the local Chinese population and it's hemmed in on all sides by freeways, a convention center, and government buildings so they've scattered to the suburbs where kids grow up dressing and talking like the white majority in their high schools.
Those communities eventually become part of mainstream america in one way or another - and it's usually by moving into the middle class and buying a house in the suburbs.
People "self-segregate" foremost by income then by racial category. But there's another layer of segregation that goes on and we're doing it right here.
One of the interesting conundrums we face with retirement village living is the delivery of services to such places and the difficulty in developing social capital.
These developments often seek to be large enough to support on-site services and it is desirable if a progression of accomodation types are available so that someone can move from independent living to different stages of assisted living over time. This is especially desirable if a couple are at different stages of life and have needs their partner can't cope with (eg. dementia) but don't want to be separated. Prospective residents seek the convenience of on-site services and a guarantee of progession in accommodation. Government and volunteer agencies favour the on-site delivery model because it reduces pressure on their own services.
When such places reach the size where these services are provided on site, the need for interaction outside the walls of the development reduce and an insular (ghetto) community is created. Social capital is dependant on the trust that is built up between different members of a community and that in turn is dependant on interaction. Communities with high social capital have lower crime rates, better public health standards, better opinions of quality of life etc. An irony is that older people tend to have low perceptions of these characteristics and are especially fearful of crime.
By further narrowing the resident selection to homosexuals, greater insularity and lower social capital probably results. Probably also lower tolerance.
For those saying people should be able to exercise choice in this matter, I don't think that is the point. As planners we aren't always about controlling things, sometimes we simply need to understand the implications of some landuse decisions, trends etc. and contemplate how we can respond to mitigate negative affects. It may be that panners don't have a solution and other service providers are needed in the equation.
These developments often seek to be large enough to support on-site services and it is desirable if a progression of accomodation types are available so that someone can move from independent living to different stages of assisted living over time. This is especially desirable if a couple are at different stages of life and have needs their partner can't cope with (eg. dementia) but don't want to be separated. Prospective residents seek the convenience of on-site services and a guarantee of progession in accommodation. Government and volunteer agencies favour the on-site delivery model because it reduces pressure on their own services.
When such places reach the size where these services are provided on site, the need for interaction outside the walls of the development reduce and an insular (ghetto) community is created. Social capital is dependant on the trust that is built up between different members of a community and that in turn is dependant on interaction. Communities with high social capital have lower crime rates, better public health standards, better opinions of quality of life etc. An irony is that older people tend to have low perceptions of these characteristics and are especially fearful of crime.
By further narrowing the resident selection to homosexuals, greater insularity and lower social capital probably results. Probably also lower tolerance.
For those saying people should be able to exercise choice in this matter, I don't think that is the point. As planners we aren't always about controlling things, sometimes we simply need to understand the implications of some landuse decisions, trends etc. and contemplate how we can respond to mitigate negative affects. It may be that panners don't have a solution and other service providers are needed in the equation.
- Messages
- 18,696
- Points
- 69
There's no mention of sexual orientation in US Federal fair housing laws, I believe. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Theoretically, I think you could put in a deed restriction in a development that says "GBLT only."Mike D. said:
Another way of restricting potential buyers to gays and lesbians is indirectly, through marketing. For instance, there's national and local gay publications that few breeders like myself read; the developers of Rainbow Palms or Stonewall Estates could just advertise in the back of The Advocate and Out. There's also word-of-mouth.
I'm not a fan of demographically insular communities, but the level of homophobia is probably much higher among older generations than among folks our age. Hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, Genration X retirees won't think anything of living next to Adam and Steve, to use a tired cliche.