Queer Space: Communities and Power in Heteronormative America

Abstract

What creates community, how is it defined, and by whom? Cities throughout time and space have hosted enclave neighborhoods that developed for the needs of specific communities, both organically and via societal systems. However, in contemporary times with the ease of physical travel as well as new systems of community forming outside the realm of physical space, what role do enclave neighborhoods play? Are we heading toward a future free of the permanent physical enclave community, and if we are what are we poised to gain and loose from this situation? Alternately, enclave communities may not be fading but instead simply altering the identifiers by which they form. The ethnocentric identifiers of the past may be shifting to a more broad sense of self-identification by ideology and philosophy. In this case, what role do these deliberate communities have in sparking reinvention and gentrification of cities? Who and what wins and loses in these new communities of choice? And how can the knowledge of what is developing organically further social equity within all communities? Squarely in the center of all these questions lie the past, present, and future of Queer communities in the United States. For the purpose of this thesis, a Queer Community is a deliberate community of individuals who self identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, and Asexual, within the United States in or after the 20th Century. By most conventional markers such as appearance, amenities, safety, and quality of life, Queer Communities in this country are seen as highly successful and desirable. Furthermore, these communities are commonly touted and courted as a fix to run down neighborhoods and catalyst to spur gentrification. However, is this perception really the case, and if it is what are the physical and socially transferable building blocks to these communities success? Furthermore, are there design elements that contribute to the success of Queer Communities, or are the communities success more based in the socioeconomic characteristics of the residents? What can be learned from the success and failures of Queer Communities, and how can the knowledge of positive development in Queer Communities be harnessed to improve the quality and stabilize struggling communities without the effects of gentrification?