Place_4_"A nice place to live"

 I'll just write a note about philosophy of place.

In this section the author introduces about the importance of memory and heritage in the production of place. In order to explain this, he takes two examples of real location;  Rancho Santa Margarita(RSM),which is the example used in Till's paper, and Crawley in Britain.
The first place was subject to gentrification. However the method used at the town is different from ones of New York, in which gentrifiers tried to withdraw local people to make the place more attractive one for middle-class. In RSM, people called "neotraditionalism" were working. This type of people placed words such as "community" and "history" the center of the plans. The planners created the place through the community by providing a sense of historical continuity and stability. Here the idea of place with the history is used to get people to buy houses in RSM. The actual buildings are mass-produced by large company. To sum up, "good place to live" is created through the promotion.
In the past, the second place was "New Towns" in London. Appleby, who researched this area, indicates about a man, who is responsible for naming streets in the town.  He named the streets based on English history and sense of the countryside. His naming is appropriate for the anti-urban ideas of the planning movement's founders. 
In both places, the places are made through the planners'  preferable sense in order to connect the material structure into well-know mythological histories.

I think this examples are associated with what I've thought about Japanese development of countrysides. In Japan, many planners of countrysides try to capture the historical meaning of the attributing villages to promote them. To be honest, I don't like such activities. That's why most of the local people have never thought about such meanings. They have other ones. I think if their own towns are promoted by such planners, they feel that they are displaced like that local NY east side people felt.