#kittyfoster

[diversityanddesign]

Chapter Two Workshop

Speculative 1

Gentrification as defined by chapter two, Diverse Truths, is the renewal and rebuilding that accompanies the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents.”

 I think that the sequence of events related to Kitty Foster and the site of her home would have been different had gentrification of the area not occurred. Granted gentrification is defined as renewal and rebuilding, but it is also defined by displacement of the lower class. Even if gentrification had not occurred at that time, I think that it is safe to say that eventually it would have occurred in the future. What would have happened to the site until then? The Charlottesville paper describes the area as a “public nuisance and plague spot,” and refers to the place as horrid. Perhaps this is true and it was not the best place in the world. But that could be said for many places that were racially segregated and discriminated against at the time. The site would have continued to decay and fall into ruin as time went on until action was taken and gentrification would occur. But what would this mean for the events following? The commemoration of the site and ultimately the free and enslaved African Americans who had worked on and for the university would, in my opinion, not be as celebrated. Why? Because the fact that gentrification of the area took place around 100 years ago serves to define not only the people but that period of time, as opposed to if the site had only recently been gentrified in the last five or ten years and had been continually falling into disrepair.

 Gentrification does renew and revive an area, but on the other hand it displaces not only poor residents as a physical element, but the culture and history of the poor residents as abruptly erased as rebuilding and moving in of higher class people takes place. It appears in the case of Kitty Foster and the site of her home that gentrification occurred almost overnight, the area was razed and no more thought was given to the area. I don’t want to say that the razing of the site was due to racial tension at the time, or that the act in itself was an act of racism towards African Americans everywhere, though it could be possible. I do want to note, however, that it was done in such a careless way (the site was built upon and covered up), that it is obvious that little or no importance was placed on the area, or even the gravesites. But what did come out of this careless act of gentrification is the fact that the site remained untouched until it was excavated around one hundred years later. I don’t want to say that is a good thing in itself, but it did help preserve the site, whereas if gentrification had not occurred at that time, the area would probably not be as preserved.

[diversityanddesign]

Chapter Two Initial Thoughts

My initial thoughts on the chapter are that design through gentrification greatly reduces historical importance of significant moments.

 At the University of Virginia, when archeologists discovered graves and the remains of Catherine “Kitty” Foster’s site, though the historical significance of the relationship between African Americans on the University of Virginia was evident, little more was done than to place a plaque on the ground. Then, years after, a decision was made to commemorate the site. But the process of how and why so long after is curious to me.

It is part of history that African American workers worked as slaves and as somewhat free people on university campuses. But it is clear that there is little acknowledgement of the work that was done, perhaps in an effort to smooth over the history of the past, a history of racial injustice. I think that I begin to see why things progressed the way that they did in the case of the Kitty Foster site.

Kitty Foster and those around her lived on the area, as time progressed white landowners bought the land around significantly decreasing the area of the site. The site itself began to decompose due to neglect and inability to maintain due to racial inequality of the time.

Finally, the area was gentrified and the site was simply razed and built on top of. It was only years later that the site was unearthed as new plans were made for the university.

To me, this only strengthens the thoughts brought on by the previous chapter. History is erased through gentrification, which, as is usually the case, is done by a more powerful race to a lesser race.

Then of course when evidence is found years later and society feels as though it needs to redeem its past actions, plans are made to, in an offhand way, commemorate the site.

Would commemoration be necessary if the site, the area, hadn’t been gentrified? Of course, that is a “what if” question and the fact remains that it did happen.

Now a structure and system has been designed to commemorate the space and at least this time, a structure has been designed for interaction as opposed to something as simple as a plaque that people can walk top of without a second thought.

The structure itself does do a decent job of creating a moment within which people interact with a space that has historical impact, not only of remembering the people but giving them a physical location on the site.