In his study of the 1995 Chicago heat epidemic, sociologist Eric Klinenberg identifies how the neighbourhoods of Englewood and Auburn Gresham with similar demographics, majority black and poor, fared so differently during the heatwave. “Englewood was one of the most perilous places during the disaster, with 33 deaths per 100,000 residents”, Klinenberg says, however, “Auburn Gresham’s death rate was 3 deaths per 100,000 residents making it one of the most resilient places in the city” (Klinenberg, (2018). pp. 4). The difference between the two demographically similar neighbourhoods is what Klinenberg calls social infrastructure; “the physical places and organisations that shape the way people interact”(Klinenberg, (2018). pp. 5).
The difference between the two is what we would commonly describe as a sense of community, where interaction between neighbours is commonplace and where younger residents would check on the old, where residents know who lives above and below them and where they are not afraid to walk the streets alone. Auburn Gresham is a place where this social infrastructure is found in abundance, a space in which community identity is evident, whereas in comparison, Englewood lacks any community spirit. The elderly residents of Englewood died during the heat epidemic, as no one to check on their wellbeing, as there was in Auburn Gresham.
The difference between the two is what we would commonly describe as a sense of community, where interaction between neighbours is commonplace and where younger residents would check on the old, where residents know who lives above and below them and where they are not afraid to walk the streets alone. Auburn Gresham is a place where this social infrastructure is found in abundance, a space in which community identity is evident, whereas in comparison, Englewood lacks any community spirit. The elderly residents of Englewood died during the heat epidemic, as no one to check on their wellbeing, as there was in Auburn Gresham.
Berolina could be considered to have poor social infrastructure, with its barren in-between spaces and majority elderly demographic. During our visit to Berolina, our guide Roman, explained to us that it is common to find deceased elderly residents in their apartments some time after their deaths. This is a clear indication of weak social infrastructure. I argue that the reactivation of Berolina’s in-between spaces would develop social infrastructure and create a sustainable relationship between the young and old residents, therefore introducing resilience into the community.
These spaces of social infrastructure, which “fosters contact, mutual support, and collaboration among friends and neighbours” (Klinenberg, (2018). pp. 5) needs to be introduced to Berolina’s in-between spaces, as a method to ensure cultural, mental and social resilience. Berliners are proven to be resilient people, having dealt with the separation of the Berlin wall, and more recently resisting the commercial development of their cultural spaces, however this resilience is not evident on the Berolina site.
These spaces of social infrastructure, which “fosters contact, mutual support, and collaboration among friends and neighbours” (Klinenberg, (2018). pp. 5) needs to be introduced to Berolina’s in-between spaces, as a method to ensure cultural, mental and social resilience. Berliners are proven to be resilient people, having dealt with the separation of the Berlin wall, and more recently resisting the commercial development of their cultural spaces, however this resilience is not evident on the Berolina site.