How Bikes and Bike-Share Threaten a Way of Life in Chicago Magazine
Full article here
How Bikes and Bike-Share Threaten a Way of Life
Why is so much anger directed towards cyclists? They’re the vanguard of a great—and frightening—inversion.
John Kass issued another anti-bike emission the other day, something I continue to find perversely fascinating. Streetsblog Chicago’s John Greenfield captured his rhetorical dispatch in all its spittle-flecked glory:
“This is the problem with the Divvy bikes, with all the bikes,” Kass says in the video. “This is a city made for people who want to go from point A to point B. This is not some Seattle coffee, grunge, pothead experiment. This is Chicago… Shut the whole Divvy bike thing down. Get off Dearborn. I’m tired of you people.”
(He doesn’t like coffee either, at least not good coffee. Or the people who make good coffee: “When I go for coffee, I want a cup of coffee. What I don’t need is some kid wearing a sweater and his shirt tails sticking out because it’s the style, pointing to a list of coffees, each of which are described sensually, in language that would have caused my mom to wash my mouth out with soap.")
Views: 1768
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Duppie on
-
Ignore the by now all too common Kass-trashing, and you'll find an interesting article about potential demographic changes and it's impact on society.
-
Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on
-
Despite the title, the article was more about transportation issues in general. Interesting perspective.
-
Permalink Reply by Rich S on
-
I don't think I agree that bikes being associated with privilege is the source of anti-bike feeling. If that were the case then we probably wouldn't perceive drivers of luxury/expensive cars to be the biggest jerks on the road. While that is a perception, I've read about a few studies recently which quantified that drivers of luxury cars do in fact violate right of way more frequently.
I think most people naturally prefer to maintain status quo and do perceive change as threatening even if only subconsciously.
Jeff Schneider said:I think most anti-bike feeling has less to do with anyone feeling threatened by a great inversion, and more to do with associating bikes and privilege. Where are there a lot of bikes? Predominantly in neighborhoods that have high walk score grades. And there is a fair correlation between walk score grade and affluence.
-
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on
-
No, people definitely regard bikes as a sign of privilege, I forget the ward but an alderman once referred to bike lanes as, 'The white lines of gentrification.' What many of us think of as median level lifestyle is considered quite affluent by many undeserved people.
Rich S said:I don't think I agree that bikes being associated with privilege is the source of anti-bike feeling. If that were the case then we probably wouldn't perceive drivers of luxury/expensive cars to be the biggest jerks on the road. While that is a perception, I've read about a few studies recently which quantified that drivers of luxury cars do in fact violate right of way more frequently.
I think most people naturally prefer to maintain status quo and do perceive change as threatening even if only subconsciously.
Jeff Schneider said:I think most anti-bike feeling has less to do with anyone feeling threatened by a great inversion, and more to do with associating bikes and privilege. Where are there a lot of bikes? Predominantly in neighborhoods that have high walk score grades. And there is a fair correlation between walk score grade and affluence.
-
Permalink Reply by Michelle on
-
I feel like, while many cyclists who commute aren't well off, their more in the "broke but doing ok" camp than in the "poor/living in poverty" camp. There is a huge difference.
-
-
Exactly, to somebody at or near poverty level my lifestyle is pretty damn extravagant.
Michelle said:I feel like, while many cyclists who commute aren't well off, their more in the "broke but doing ok" camp than in the "poor/living in poverty" camp. There is a huge difference.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Zumwalt on
-
He's mad that Grunge is making a comeback maybe?
http://www.nouse.co.uk/2013/11/20/punk-and-grunge-is-making-a-come-...
-
Permalink Reply by Bikefreeek on
-
I'm not sure if it's all that easy to pigeon hole who's riding bikes these days.
The aldermanic ward you're referring to is the 26th ward on the West Side that includes much of Humboldt Park. It was Billy Ocasio who was the alderman who opposed bike lanes along Division St and prevented them from going in for 10 years or so. I think it was an article on Grid Chicago/Streetsblog by John Greenfield that was titled 'The white lines of gentrification' that used that term and referred to the bike lanes and politics on Division. Certainly a broad and diverse demographic bicycles in Humboldt Park and I know for fact that community organizations have embraced bicycles as an important part of larger community plans for people from all walks of life.
Another sign of the diversity in biking that I wouldn't necessarily associate with privilege are those teenage bike thieves that have been a hot topic lately. Certainly those bikers are generating negative feelings from more than just drivers.
I think that it's really easy to focus prejudice towards whoever you're bias against when you're annoyed and frustrated with the situation that others are involved with.
I think it's true that things are changing and people are often challenged by change.
notoriousDUG said:No, people definitely regard bikes as a sign of privilege, I forget the ward but an alderman once referred to bike lanes as, 'The white lines of gentrification.' What many of us think of as median level lifestyle is considered quite affluent by many undeserved people.
Rich S said:I don't think I agree that bikes being associated with privilege is the source of anti-bike feeling. If that were the case then we probably wouldn't perceive drivers of luxury/expensive cars to be the biggest jerks on the road. While that is a perception, I've read about a few studies recently which quantified that drivers of luxury cars do in fact violate right of way more frequently.
I think most people naturally prefer to maintain status quo and do perceive change as threatening even if only subconsciously.
Jeff Schneider said:I think most anti-bike feeling has less to do with anyone feeling threatened by a great inversion, and more to do with associating bikes and privilege. Where are there a lot of bikes? Predominantly in neighborhoods that have high walk score grades. And there is a fair correlation between walk score grade and affluence.
-
-
I agree, there are lots of different people on bikes but I still think that a fair number of the people who are detractors of bikes, bike infrastructure and advocacy see cyclists as part of the affluent class; the age old image of the dentist on the Serrotta as it were.
I agree 110% that a lot of the push back you see from many people has less to do with any image perception or actual social issue and more to do with the good old, 'BUT THINGS ARE DIFFERENT AND SCARY NOW!' issue.
Bikefreeek said:I'm not sure if it's all that easy to pigeon hole who's riding bikes these days.
The aldermanic ward you're referring to is the 26th ward on the West Side that includes much of Humboldt Park. It was Billy Ocasio who was the alderman who opposed bike lanes along Division St and prevented them from going in for 10 years or so. I think it was an article on Grid Chicago/Streetsblog by John Greenfield that was titled 'The white lines of gentrification' that used that term and referred to the bike lanes and politics on Division. Certainly a broad and diverse demographic bicycles in Humboldt Park and I know for fact that community organizations have embraced bicycles as an important part of larger community plans for people from all walks of life.
Another sign of the diversity in biking that I wouldn't necessarily associate with privilege are those teenage bike thieves that have been a hot topic lately. Certainly those bikers are generating negative feelings from more than just drivers.
I think that it's really easy to focus prejudice towards whoever you're bias against when you're annoyed and frustrated with the situation that others are involved with.
I think it's true that things are changing and people are often challenged by change.
notoriousDUG said:No, people definitely regard bikes as a sign of privilege, I forget the ward but an alderman once referred to bike lanes as, 'The white lines of gentrification.' What many of us think of as median level lifestyle is considered quite affluent by many undeserved people.
Rich S said:I don't think I agree that bikes being associated with privilege is the source of anti-bike feeling. If that were the case then we probably wouldn't perceive drivers of luxury/expensive cars to be the biggest jerks on the road. While that is a perception, I've read about a few studies recently which quantified that drivers of luxury cars do in fact violate right of way more frequently.
I think most people naturally prefer to maintain status quo and do perceive change as threatening even if only subconsciously.
Jeff Schneider said:I think most anti-bike feeling has less to do with anyone feeling threatened by a great inversion, and more to do with associating bikes and privilege. Where are there a lot of bikes? Predominantly in neighborhoods that have high walk score grades. And there is a fair correlation between walk score grade and affluence.
-
-
I didn't say that people don't regard bikes as a sign of privilege. Just that I don't think that's the source of anti-bike feeling. That being said it's all about perspective. If I lived in some of the poorer neighborhoods of Chicago I certainly would be challenging my alderman about why cycling infrastructure is being funded while schools are being closed. And I would be very resentful towards anyone supporting that infrastructure.
I live on the north side and work downtown. Most of those commuting with me do the same. So any resentment I experience that turns into action is hard pressed to be based on my perceived affluence. The one time I was spit on was by someone driving a newer model Range Rover. Super classy move!
notoriousDUG said:No, people definitely regard bikes as a sign of privilege, I forget the ward but an alderman once referred to bike lanes as, 'The white lines of gentrification.' What many of us think of as median level lifestyle is considered quite affluent by many undeserved people.
-
Permalink Reply by Reboot Oxnard on
-
Modern day urbanism often resembles nothing so much as trickle-down economics, though this time mostly advocated by those who would self-identify as being from the left. The idea is that through investments catering to the fickle and mobile educated elite and the high end businesses that employ and entertain them, cities can be rejuvenated in a way that somehow magically benefits everybody and is socially fair.
The people most aggressively pushing urbanist policies like bike lanes, public art, high end mixed use developments, high tech startups, swank boutiques and restaurants, greening the city policies, etc. are disproportionately those who want to live that lifestyle themselves, or hope to someday. Like me in other words. The fact that you’re a Millennial who rides around to microbreweries on your fixie without necessarily having a high paying job yourself (yet) doesn’t matter. You are still advocating for your own preferred milieu, and that of others who think like yourself.
Have urbanists used this as a call to arms to put all of their energy into helping those left behind in the knowledge/creative class economy? No. Instead, urban advocates have gone the other direction, locking onto this in a reductionist way to develop a set of policies I call “Starbucks urbanism.” That is, the focus is on an exclusively high end, sanitized version of city life that caters to the needs of the elite with the claim that this will somehow “revitalize” the city if they are attracted there.
As with trickle-down economics, this a) doesn’t work and b) is being promoted by the self-interested.
Not my words but lifted from Is Urbanism the New Trickle-Down Economics?
by Aaron Renn over at Urbanophile and worth the read. I found the article in the course of reading Does Modern Urbanism Only Help a City's Elite by Whet Moser at Chicagomag.com.
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Montanaro 0mi on
-
If nothing else, the gentrification represented by "Starbucks urbanism" increases tax revenues to the city. Unlike traditional trickle down economics, where the recipients of reduced taxes aren't required to do anything generally useful with their windfall, presumably cities (if well-managed) will use the increased tax revenue to improve services that benefit the entire electorate, not just the Starbucks elite.
Groups
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
-
British Bicycles of Chic…
172 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
