“As tenants and small business owners invest their time and money into gradually upgrading their neighborhoods, real estate investors become attracted to these areas anxious to capitalize on the improvements.”

Gentrification. We’ve seen it unfold throughout various parts of the city, quickly creeping to the other parts. This chapter documents the fight of those inhabitants that were dislocated due to “redevelopment”, those who began to declare “we won’t move”; if only it were that simple.

Throughout the chapter, Angotti (directly and indirectly) states that if you weren’t white or with a position of power (which were usually elite urban reform activists), you were bound to be dislocated. On page 89 he brings up the “professional planner’s bias”. For urban renewal, city planners were to define the community a “slums” or “blighted areas”. Yet these terms were subjective to the city planners who were usually middle-class whites. They weren’t a part of the community, and projected their “racial fears and class anxieties” in their decisions.

Another interesting point to note is that if you were part of the working-class, being white gave you a upper hand. This isn’t so much of a surprise as this advantage still applies today, but the interesting point is that we haven’t progressed away from these race and class divisions in the past 50 years. In 1961, Jane Jacobs published her book The Death and Life of Great American cities. While her work was definitely significant, the main reason her community was able to stop the urban renewal process was because the majority of the neighborhood was white. Meanwhile, communities more vulnerable were not heard.

These two points highlight the other side of the urban renewal process; who is the city really trying to benefit with these plans? Do the inhabitants of communities undergoing this process today play a role in the decision making, or are powerful elitists still projecting their racial fears and class anxieties? I think we know which side the answer is leaning towards.

The overarching theme that is present throughout what seems to be the history of urban planning is the incredible impact that gentrification and one-sided decision making have had on community development. Throughout the chapter, the author makes his stance on the topic of urban planning quite clear: power is disproportionately distributed among the wealthy. Over the course of this city’s history, neighborhoods have been developed and redeveloped to suit the needs of the times. As various social movements gained steam, communities had to reconstruct themselves in order to keep up. Along with this came the inevitable: master builders like Robert Moses lost influence and became irrelevant. So what happens next?

The main issue with the history of urban planning seems to be the fact that those with the greatest authority tend to disregard the needs of those who are actually residing in these communities. Numerous social movements and riots plans had erupted in opposition to community development plans. Although these events- in addition to other national social movements- did have some influence on development, conditions for community residents continued to be far from ideal. At some points in time, it seemed as if issues in lower-income communities were going to be eradicated, only to be met with backlash from whites. For instance, although African Americans saw some (little) improvement in their communities as a result of social change, it still proved to be an incredible challenge to have their voices heard in areas dominated by white elites (such as the school system, as well as everything else).

Community planning in New York City can be viewed as somewhat of a rollercoaster. For instance, consider the War on Poverty. As initiatives which intended to gain firsthand participation from residents of low-income communities in the planning of their own neighborhoods began to take off, the election of conservative presidents brought these plans to an end.

What does this mean for the future of community development in New York City? In my opinion, the trend that this city has been following for the entirety of its history-in which urban planning favors the elite-will be perpetuated. Although many more groups-including minorities- have gained influence, the same “social elite” are still such a powerful and prevailing group that it will be so difficult to undermine their power in favor of the “average man’s” needs. As time goes on, the gap between the influence of the rich and the poor shrinks in size, but I do not believe it will ever truly be filled.

We all know New York City has its problems when it comes to property and urban planning, but the root of this problem stems from NYC’s addiction to real estate. New York’s history of city planning consists of deregulation and actually no planning, which gave rise to real estate in NYC. According to Angotti, “the federal urban-renewal program in the ’60s and ’70s left a lot of vacant lands, a lot of blight” because of the idea that neighborhoods were slums and that luxurious condos would turn the community around and improve our lives. But it didn’t.

The struggle of the community starts back to when slaves were in high demand in the U.S. The influx of immigrants and rich white folk led to the displacement of blacks, or “negro removal,” which demonstrated that urban renewal was not just about local neighborhood issues but was a central part of the national civil rights movement. Political movements and civil and labor rights rose around the 19th century and established strong bases in the city.

Local communities have united and attempted to solve problems themselves. Poor community members who took ownership over abandoned properties and put their love and labor into improving their communities, such as cultivating gardens, unintentionally created conditions for their own displacement. The revival of the community attracted wealthy residents who drove up housing values so much that the original tenants could not afford to remain in the revitalized community, simply because there were no laws or policies in place to protect them. This represents the tragedy of gentrification.

Angotti addresses progressive community planning as a response to community injustices such as gentrification, urban renewal, real estate speculation, large-scale planning while also situating these responses within wider political, economic, and social contexts. We need to fight social injustice while insulating ourselves from real estate market pressure. We need to understand community-based planning beyond the scope of immediate challenges, as in look at community planning across multiple scales and generations to understand the root of the problem.

Discussion question:  New York’s revenue relies heavily on real estate taxes, but from a local perspective real estate can induce greater division between the rich and the poor and the blacks and the whites. How can we combat the powerful force of real estate companies?

A common theme that has appeared through the last couple texts is exchange. Looking at Robert Moses, Jane Jacobs and now the history of community planning in New York City, there is usually some sort of agreement and exchange at hand when looking at how the city’s neighborhoods were planned, zoned and subsequently “renewed.” Robert Moses is known for all of his architectural additions to New York, but what was lost when building these developments is often skipped over. For example, Moses often used the much-contested theory of eminent domain to find space for the 627 miles of highway he helped build in the city. As a sort of “thank-you” for the seized land, Moses would build new public housing buildings. Unlike earlier public housing projects, these units were meant for those displaced by the “urban renewal.” The displaced were often of color and didn’t have many other options to find affordable housing in the city. These exchanges lead to what can only be seen as the creation of artificially segregated ghettos.

Looking past Moses’ time, we continue to see these planning exchanges. What is said to be one the most important land-use reforms since 1916 was the development of community boards and districts. This concession was supposed to be a way to provide some sort of autonomy to neighborhoods across the city, supposedly allowing residents to have a say about the future of their land. Yet, with community boards came a drawback. Community board votes actually weren’t worth much, since they were only advisory and final decisions were reserved for the City Planning Commission and the City Council. The position of board member was simply a title, since members often had to answer to borough presidents anyway and their votes basically meant nothing.

Now considering these aforementioned trades, I wonder if they were, or are, actually worth it. Could Robert Moses have found some sort of way to change the city in the ways he did without completely destroying neighborhoods and further ostracizing people of color and the poor? Was it worth surrendering your rights to lands around your neighborhood for at least getting your voice heard? Without being able to answer these questions, one can still look at the outcomes today. Community districts, I believe, have a played a pretty decent role in getting things done around the city. When you happen to be loud enough for those in charge to hear, stuff eventually gets done. Also with the vast infrastructure Moses had helped lay, New York certainly did evolve into one of the most prosperous cities in the country. There is no way to tell if the way we got to where we are today was truly the “right way.”

Based on chapter 3 of Angotti’s book, it seems that the biggest problem facing city planners and urban communities is one of balance. Jane Jacobs hinted at this when she wrote that the key to successful cities was diversity and varied buildings. But Angotti’s work prompted me to think more deeply about the issue, and I saw that the more important (and more challenging) balance to achieve is between people rather than buildings.

This chapter highlights the power struggle between the decision makers and those affected by the decisions. One example of this struggle was the rent strikes that took place throughout the early 1900s, and the battle for rent controlled properties. Landlords did not want to relinquish profit, while tenants did not want to pay high rents. Another example is the struggle between squatters, who wanted to stay in abandoned areas, and the city government that sought to auction off those areas. Both groups were acting in their own best interest, and this theme pervades the rest of the chapter. Such conflicts are not limited to struggles between groups. CDCs provide a perfect example of how, even within a group, there can be a conflict of interest. Different CDCs had different political agendas, and they also had multiple responsibilities that were sometimes contradictory. They acted as both landlords and as vehicles of change in cities, and those that focused too heavily on one particular role had trouble surviving.

The CDCs, the strikers, the city government, the squatters, and the landlords all have one thing in common: they acted in their own best interest. This makes sense, as self-preservation is a fundamental part of human nature. This chapter showed that fact quite clearly. In general, city planning organizations assert an agenda that benefits a particular group at the expense of another. No plan can satisfy everyone, so it is essential that the various groups reach some sort of compromise. No single group should have absolute power because a city, like an ecosystem, must maintain a balance if it is to thrive. Reading this chapter made me realize that compromise is essential in city planning. People need to be willing to sacrifice some of their immediate gains for the long-term benefits of living in a thriving city that does not suffer from constant conflict and unrest. Incidentally, this logic can be applied to the Jacobs-Moses rivalry, and it follows that a compromise between the two would be better for a city than the application of either the Moses or Jacobs philosophy alone.

As development in NYC picks up pace in the 1900’s, the overall cost of living increases dramatically. Thousands of families were displaced in order for city projects or better housing to be developed. Communities labeled as “slums” were cleared out and these families had to move to projects or less desirable housing. It was also around this time that many non-profit organizations gathered to develop community housing for low income families or people in need. The architecture firm that I worked part-time in deals with many non-profit organizations to develop community housing/low-income housing. Some of these clients are The Bridge, MHANY, Nehemiah H.F.D.C., HPD, Concern for Independent Living, Inc and many others. Some of these institutions were even mentioned in the text.

However, I would like to focus on the Nehemiah community housing. As mentioned in the text, Nehemiah acquired land to develop low-cost single-family homes. In their current Nehemiah Spring Creek project, hundreds of new buildings have been and are being built on what was once vacant land. This land was a former landfill and is located right behind the Erskine mall in East Brooklyn. This piece of land is not as favorable, but is also one of the few remaining pieces of vacant land left in the city. Nehemiah gets its funding from many city agencies for the large amount of buildings being built. This gives these agencies a degree of control over the project, and often with guidelines that the architects have to meet during the design phase. This makes the entire construction project complicated and slow. Funding is often inadequate and certain luxuries must be sacrificed in order to fund the project. Nehemiah now wants two-family or 8-family buildings instead of one-family buildings. Higher-family buildings cost slightly more to build compared to one-family buildings, but since funding from agencies come per unit built, Nehemiah will get more funding to build each building. This is most likely the case for other community housing projects across the city. The increase in cost of land and construction in NYC and other cities makes it very difficult to build uncrowded housing.

Furthermore, many community housing projects are taking place in Long Island than in NYC now. The construction cost and land value is much lower in Long Island than in the city. This further demonstrates how low-income families, minorities, and other communities are slowly being pushed from neighborhoods closer to the city center to the edges of the city or into Long Island.

Reading through “From Dislocation to Resistance: The Roots of Community Planning,” the author mainly focusing on racial and economic inequality of City Planning. She presents New York as a place where public officials and wealthy citizens move working class people like pawns, especially black working class people, without any regard, in the process of transforming the City. On many occasions, this exercise of power from the powerful usually results in forms of resistant from the oppressed, such as riots, like in the 1860’s or 1950’s, forming grass roots community organization, like CDCs ,or living on the fringe, like squatting . I love reading about the “mutual aid societies” or “cooperative ownership of land” during the early 1900’s. These types of societies do not really achieve the integration and shared communities that highlight modern urban planning, since they included only the same ethnicity/make up in a group, but I love hearing about people working together and forming a collective stake in their future. This idea is especially important in lower-middle class communities because their strength stems from their numbers and their specialized abilities, not from individual wealth. The victories gardens during WWII were also adorable, and I wish they were maintained instead of becoming abandoned. Having green space and growing fresh fruits and vegetables is always advantageous.

I am confused about the “slum clearance” of the 1950-60s. Neighborhoods were just teared down because they were in disrepair or the government officials just didn’t  like the people living there? That’s in no way a rational approach. More people just become dispersed and more impoverished, worsening the problem. It’s an example that City Planning cannot solely solve by moving/building buildings. I also found the Columbia University gym protest funny in recent light. There’s no gym, but there is an enormous Columbia research facility being built in Harlem. At least if there was a gym, it could be open to members of the community at certain times- but how will a research center involve a community?

Discussion Question: How can City Planning more effectively take into account the needs of the community?

(I hadn’t relied that the reading was only from p81 so my response is informed by chapters 1 and 2 as well. Also don’t necessarily take it as my opinion,  its more of a devils advocate look at the motivations of some community planning.)

The main theme in the reading/from community planners is that displacement and gentrification are bad and that they should be prevented. For those who are currently living in areas that may be at risk of gentrifying are justified in their concern but begin to lose credit when they deny that this is out of self interest. It is generally accepted that NYC is in need of more affordable housing but projects are often opposed by those who live in the area where they will be place. Classic NIMBYism. I can see that peoples voices are often ignored when plans are being made for an area because they are likely to advocate for little to no change.

It would seem that the flip-side of gentrification is repeatedly ignored.  The rise in property taxes in an area are directly related to the rise in property values of the properties from which homeowners are being displaced, so yes they may have to move but they will get at least some compensation for the inconvenience. Next we have to look at the much larger portion of people who are renters. They don’t see the benefit of rising property values but they may (if the city is managed properly) see the benefits of increased city services that result from increased tax revenues. Maybe these services would include better public transportation connecting more parts of the city thus expanding the viable housing options for those who are being displaced.

It is common to hear the argument, “well, who will be there for all the low-paying poor-people jobs, in a city with no cheap housing?” I wonder if is possible that, since these jobs must be done, a scarcity of workers may force establishments to offer more pay? It is also a common concern that the city is segregated and yet if no one is displace how will this be remedied? The idea that communities should prevent displacement is perhaps based only in the short sighted discomfort of having to move while sacrificing opportunity for growth.

This is where community planning can come to work in conjunction with improving areas and help facilitate gentrification is a beneficial way rather than resist it till they get bulldozed by it. The process could be harnessed to improve areas while ensuring that the discomfort felt can be minimized while the benefits can be extended to all parties.

Discussion: What should the role of the city government take in encouraging/discouraging projects that have the potential to transform neighborhoods?