A Whole New World?!

What is a 21st-century neighborhood? A 21^st century is an environment where there is much diversity within a neighborhood. A 21^st century neighborhood has wealthy citizens living next door to the poor. However, it is described in Sampson’s last chapter that the perception is that of decay and segregation.

How tied is it to the past? Neighborhoods appear to be tied to the past, according to Sampson’s text, relative to their nature. Meaning the “death corner” still has a relative proximity to having the same results as it has in the past. The store owner being “shot in the back” which I figure is a literal meaning is an example of the continuing habits of the old “death corner”.

Why? As Sampson stated, the individual intervention method is not effective in making the changes necessary difference to alter the future relative to its past. Meaning without any broad scale intervention the habits of neighborhoods will remain the same throughout the future of the neighborhood.

What will a 22nd-century neighborhood look like? A 22^nd century neighborhood will look very similar to a 21^st century neighborhood without a neighborhood sized intervention. It seems, as evident from Sampson’s research, that neighborhoods stay fairly consistent over time. As Sampson’s conclusions suggests, the only way to alter the future path of a neighborhood is with broad scale intervention.

Is community dying, thriving, or just bumbling along, about the same now as always? I think (which means little to no research backing my opinion) that community is dying a little. It could be “bumbling along” meaning that community is altering rather than dying. However, I feel that the altering community has been causing the sense of community to die a little. For example, without the modern technology (such as internet, cell phones, planes, etc.) it was more common for community to be closer in proximity physically. With the modern technology communities are physically distant and “real physical” interaction is severely lessened. So it would depend on how you look at community, is the goal physical contact or just mere communication? 

Crisis?

What do you think of Sampson's arguments in the "aftermath" of the 2008 economic crisis?

I tend to disagree with Sampson in this chapter. Am I to understand that he believes there is little (if any) change after a financial crisis? I can agree that numbers may support an argument but I feel very strongly that given the right "tester" any study can be proven for or against any argument by "playing with" the numbers. That is, presenting them in a way that is preferred to get results that support one's argument. In any case, if the spatial separation between rich and poor by income or demographics stayed consistent after a financial crisis then that is fine. However, I feel there are many factors (too many) to fully understand or even attempt to predict any future "set-up" within any community or neighborhood. Again, Sampson's reading is more difficult than I feel it needs to be and a bit redundant with references to previous chapters or leading sentences about what he is going to discuss in future chapters. In an article I read there is strong evidence of a financial crisis and why it happened. It suggests that government involvement had a strong (negative) impact on Chicago. However, in an opinion article in the Chicago Tribune, it is suggested that the entire "crisis" may have been a ploy to avoid paying what the government did not want to pay for. In either case, I feel that a finincial crisis of a city would have drastic results on a community.
Kashyap, Anil K., 2010, “Lessons from the Financial Crisis for Risk Management”, available at http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/anil.kashyap/research/recent.html

After answering that question, see if you can answer Sampson's own question: "Why does violence unhinge some communities and draw others closer together?

I feel that the outcome of a community as a result from violence depends entirely on the "collective" culture of the community. Meaning that if the community is highly "ethical" and collaborative then the result will likely be drawn closer together whereas a community of high separation and "unethical" behavior will unhinge. There are always exceptions to the rule and as an example we could look at the modern "doomsday preppers" who could easily be classified as unhinged but exist in both low violence and high violence communities. On the other side of the argument the "doomsday preppers" could be classified as being drawn closer together than most others. Again, they live in both high violence and low violence communities so it could be argued that it would depend solely on the individuals within the community which again comes back to what I originally said.

When you're done, give us your update on your presentation research, with citations.

Unfortunately my research took a back seat this week while I studied and focused on other courses. I plan on getting back into this week since I past the other tests I was working towards this last week. My topic is still the effectiveness of ethical business versus lawful business and the effect on the communities the business is involved with. Same sources as I posted last week are what I have this week thus far but I do plan on finding more to possibly inform my position with regards to business leaders and their involvement with communities and the effects.