“From Global to Local: The Rise of Homelessness in Los Angeles during the 1980s” from Allen J. Scott and Edward W. Soja (eds) The City: Los Angeles and Urban Theory at the End of the Twentieth Century (1996)

2020 ◽  
pp. 200-210
Author(s):  
Jennifer Wolch
1999 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 126-128
Author(s):  
Catherine S. Ramirez

Throughout the twentieth century (and now the twenty-first), the specter of a Latina/o past, present, and future has haunted the myth of Los Angeles as a sunny, bucolic paradise. At the same time it has loomed behind narratives of the city as a dystopic, urban nightmare. In the 1940s Carey McWilliams pointed to the fabrication of a “Spanish fantasy heritage” that made Los Angeles the bygone home of fair señoritas, genteel caballeros and benevolent mission padres. Meanwhile, the dominant Angeleno press invented a “zoot” (read Mexican-American) crime wave. Unlike the aristocratic, European Californias/os of lore, the Mexican/American “gangsters” of the 1940s were described as racial mongrels. What's more, the newspapers explicitly identified them as the sons and daughters of immigrants-thus eliding any link they may have had to the Californias/os of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries or to the history of Los Angeles in general.


2003 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 183-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert A. Beauregard
Keyword(s):  

A number of urban theorists have recently deployed a specific type of rhetoric to support claims that their city—Las Vegas, Miami, Los Angeles—deserves paradigmatic status. Using “superlatives” and assertions that their city is “first” on one or another measure, they have slipped into an academic boosterism at odds with a critical theoretical enterprise. This article explores how urban theorists might position themselves in relation to the city. Based on the premise that all knowledge is situated, it argues for an urban theory that is both critical and engaged.


2019 ◽  
pp. 231-246
Author(s):  
Julie Ren

Given the confluence of a vast body of research about urban China and the heated debates about urban theory, revisiting Park seems at first glance like an untimely, limiting tactic for setting a research agenda. Taking Park as a starting point does not, however, dictate rules about speaking in his terms, nor does it require a re-treading of the Los Angeles School critiques of his work. Rather, it can be a valuable way to review the research on urban China in order to situate this work within greater theoretical issues. This concluding chapter reflects on the general issues of exceptionalism and methodology haunting the research on urban China. It suggests that rather than a research agenda like the one Park outlines in his essay on “The City,” perhaps the future of research demands a reconsideration of approach.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document