The Real Simcity

There are six discourses that make up the concept of the postmetropolis. One of them actually is the term simcity-whose definition is similar to the movie and graphic novel of the same title. Basically, a simcity is a zone of hyperreality in which things are both real and unreal. In other words the line that separates the real from the unreal is blurred and it becomes difficult to tell which is which. An example of a simcity is NYC. So many bizarre things occur there on an everyday basis that it feels practically unreal. For instance, several weeks ago, me and my friends went to see Avenue Q on Broadway. While walking around Times Square afterwards we saw the Statue of Liberty hanging out in one area where you could apparently take pictures with "her." That's pretty weird but it gets weirder-Spiderman and Dora the Explorer are in another area where you can basically also pay money to take pictures with them. Yet the strangest thing in my opinion is the following: Three Elmos, two Cookie Monsters(who looked more like blue Elmos) and Shrek were wandering around Times Square(Not in one spot like Spiderman or the Statue of Liberty) waving at people and carrying Christmas stockings. Also the costumes seem rather bootlegged-as in not official costumes. I think this actually occurs on a regular basis because the last time I was in NYC in October I saw Minnie,Mickey and Elmo wandering around-also carrying Christmas stockings. Perhaps these people find it completely normal to wander around dressed like well known characters in order to earn a tip from taking pictures with people-as well as a great way to make money. (So that's what the Christmas stockings are for.)

Here is a definition of hyperreality online-the cartoon characters randomly wandering around NYC totally fits in there.http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-hyperreality.htmhttp://

Attack of the Deranged,Delinquent Homeless People-or Not...

According to Mike Davis ecological view point, cities are organized based soley upon fear. Cities are seen as zones of danger. Another belief is that this damage and danger must be contained in order to make the city a safer place.Key targets that cause fear in cities include immigrants, those of the lower class, and as obvious by the title of this post-the homeless.

In an attempt to contain homeless people social boundaries are hardened-in other words fortified against the homeless. Another way to explain this is that select groups-such as the homeless are kept out through psuedo privatization. They are also kept from loitering around the city because they are considered unwanted. Examples of "keeping the homeless from invading the city" are such like how in NYC ledges of buildings have spikes on them in order to discourage the homeless from spending the night there. In some cities, park benches and bus stop seats have been replaced with tubes, also in order to prevent the homeless from sleeping there-and for the record the tubes are solid so the homeless cannot sleep INSIDE the tubes.

Truthfully though, I feel that most of this "fear of homeless people" is inside the majority of the city's populations heads. Acting like this against the homeless makes it seem as if the homeless are going to run around ruthlessly attacking people if something isn't done to prevent this from happening. In truth, this sort of behavior is rare-yet not impossible. Years ago I read in a Daily News tabloid that a homeless woman on a train in the city killed a father (in front of his young daughter) because she detested the way he was looking at her. Yet I seriously doubt that cities are going to become any safer once the homeless are detained from loitering around on park benches and bus stop seats.

Below is an article with examples of how parks and other places in Tokyo are preventing the homeless from getting comfortable by providing uncomfortable "anti-homeless" devices.

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=&no=321234&rel_no=1

No Barriers Between Us

According to Jane Jacobs barriers are actually a negative thing in societies. In general fences are put up between neighbors in suburbs or cities in order to prevent people from breaking and entering via backyards as well as to prevent prying eyes from snooping on us all the time. In other words the fences are also for privacy. Yet Jane Jacobs finds these barriers to be negative because not only do the fences keep out burglars and nosy neighbors it also keeps out diversity as well. In fact it has been proven that fences actually aren't ideal protection. Buildings can be broken into because the fence actually makes them seem less secluded not to mention that with more people wandering around pedestrian traffic is increased-quite possibly also increasing the amount of crime.

In fact public housing projects have been discovered to be high crime areas due to eyes being on the streets rather than on the houses themselves Also there is no separation of commercial and residential buildings which make the buildings even more vulnerable if a burglary were to be commited. So fences apparently draw more attention to crimminals rather than preventing them from breaking in. Without fences, privacy may be reduced, but diversity would be able to increase. Perhaps also neighbors could become closer friends due to there being no boundaries in sight-as is normally the case with true friendship.
Here's a link to an example of the downsides of a fence.http://media.www.trinitytripod.com/media/storage/paper520/news/2006/01/31/Opinions/Fence.Creates.Ugly.Border-1546026-page2.shtml