For our third walkabout, Group 5 visited the neighborhoods to the north, south, and east of Westminster College, hoping to notice some distinctive home architecture. None of the houses stood out in particular but instead were all fashioned in a fairly uniform, modified bungalow style, with gradually-pitched roofs, small but prominent front porches, and a single-story design (though at least some of them probably have basements). As college students at a state university, we could relate to these surroundings. Most of us grew up in similar suburban settings in middle-class homes that, without being flashy, nonetheless offer privacy, safety, and an ideal place to grow up. We noticed several Westminster students walking to or from campus, as well as a prominently placed University of Utah flag in a window in one of the houses along 1300 E. No doubt we were in a college neighborhood, even if the school in question is disputed ;-)
Because we went on our walkabout on a Tuesday afternoon, not many people were outside, and the chilly, blustery weather only encouraged residents to stay indoors. Consequently, there was little interaction between people and certainly no crowds, so energy levels were low. Instead, the neighborhood exuded serenity, privacy, and relaxation. As a middle-class suburban area, it offers rest from the stress of the workplace, which, in the case of most of these residents, is probably at some distance from home. The structure of the neighborhood reinforces this dichotomy between work and play, or at least work and rest. As a residential area, people do not work here or even visit; it is simply a place where people make their home. On the surface, what with such similar houses, the potential for a thriving community seems built-in, but at the same time, the people that have purchased houses in these areas have done so because they value safety and privacy. Thus, neighbors may casually interact from time to time, but group interaction is not common orencouraged. After all, though not a private living community, these neighborhoods are nonetheless characterized by private property, the homes of individuals and families, and thus arenot truly public.
I found it interesting to visit a setting so familiar to me. Even this reflection suggests that I am used to living in the suburbs, and my reactions on our walkabout were ones of, in a sense, coming home. The judgments I made were not so much related to the “value” of the location as to its surface features, which I found myself comparing to neighborhoods where I have lived. I have never, for instance, lived right across the street from a college campus, so I have not experienced the daily commute of students coming to and from school. Also, living in southern California, I saw more people coming and going. Interaction per se was not necessarily greater, but the weather is nice year-round, and people live within walking distance of shopping centers, the beach, and other favored haunts. At the same time, though, some of the attitudes about what a neighborhood is (or should be) were the same: your house is a private place, a refuge from work/school, etc. Even some of the houses looked like the ones near Westminster. So overall, our walkabout reminded me of my own experience as a middle-class suburban kid, an experience that has been a pretty good one. I enjoyed walking around and seeing some simple private homes after having visited more public spaces on our first two walkabouts.
No comments:
Post a Comment