Homelessness and LOVE Park
‘Creative Class’ and the Gentrifying City”, Ocean Howell’s
studies the turbulent relationship between the city of Philadelphia and the Skateboarders of Philadelphia’s Love Park. From Magazine to the X-Games, Skateboarding became Globally Dominating Culture
. In 2002 Love Park was redesigned to keep skaters out of the park, stirring up controversy for the city. In an interview with skateboarder Ricky Oyola, quickly erased the
Homeless from the conversation when he gives an interview
in which he claims that the skateboarders are responsible for keeping Love Park free of Homelessness, they
by doing so they made that park alive. However, I don’t think their relationship
is Mutually exclusive or they even have a consequential r
elationship. Oyola Assumptions
, that the Skaters were making changes to the park for the better; but in actuality is was just the change of the times. Howell gives an example of the Park out The Philadelphia Inquirer, who described the park as vibrant and alive, “Even with the fountain shut off, the lunchtime crowd gathered around the empty basin at JFK Plaza. Executives from Bell Telephone across the street sunned themselves…woman shooed a bumblebee away from her ginger ale…a young man-made kissy noise at pretty women who passed…” (Howell 33) and it was even ground for staging protest seeing as city hall is directly across the street. All of this well before the Skateboarders came along.
Even the Public Eye saw the Skateboarders as the solution, because they saw them as a way to Temper with the Homeless population’s activities.
What is that? An official status? Why capitalized?
Whose relationship? Clarify
I’m not sure what you mean by that in this context.
assumes—also, you are capitalizing random words. It’s very odd. I don’t know if that’s a formatting issue in whatever program you use, or what.
There seem to be several problems with your argument here. You first make the claim that the skaters and homeless aren’t mutually exclusive, but then you go on to say that skaters kicked out the homeless. Also you then argue against specifically the skaters’ view of themselves as improving the park, the support for which is a time preceding the skaters. That is a straw man argument. What you are suggesting is that the skaters believe that the park could not be “alive” in their absence, that the only way, ever, to have it that way is with their presence. That is not what Oyola’s position is—rather, he believes they improved it from the conditions in which they found it. Moreover, the skaters aren’t the only ones who believe the skaters improved it—most of the public agreed, and Howells also agrees to some extent (at least that they changed the park). So I’m not sure why you aim your argument against the skaters in specific.