Yielding Planning to the Masses in Melrose

Angotti’s chapters “From Protest to Community Plan” and “Community Planning for the Few” discuss instances in which community members attempted to influence city planning, to various degrees of success. In both Cooper Square and Melrose Commons, activists efficiently mobilized to construct an alternative plan to challenge the area’s master blueprint. Angotti explains that local visionaries have had just as profound of an effect on the city as Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs: “Urban historians have largely overlooked stories of … working-class people throughout the city whose organizing and ideas have left an imprint on the city” (126-127). Zukin concludes The Naked City with a perspective on the search for “authentic” spaces and how this argument is used to shape the city’s landscape.

A significant coalition advocating on behalf of Melrose in the Bronx is We Stay! ¡Nos Quedamos! It aimed to critically reflect how development would impact the community in all aspects – physically, socially, economically, and environmentally (Angotti 124). This is a prime example of a grassroots movement voicing their opinions over land use. The Class Divide parallels this as one of the interviewees argued to her landlord, “This is your property, but this is my home,” (58:41). Those who experience the effects of development and displacement must endure it daily; for this reason, the planning process should include community participation on a bigger scale. We Stay! marked an intersectional Bronx movement that combined elements for environmental justice and against overdevelopment. Working in tandem with local officials and institutions, We Stay! took six months to offer a different plan than the city’s for Melrose Commons. Their plan was eventually accepted, and lessened the impact of displacement. Though this was a remarkable feat comparable to Jacobs’ fight to defend Washington Square Park against another highway, the group did record some losses. The Bronx Courthouse, which they fought to preserve, was eventually sold to a private entity (Angotti 126). Nevertheless, We Stay! successfully protected their neighborhood against the larger, looming hand of displacement. Their story shows how critical it is for community activists to speak up for their spaces.

I decided to look into how Melrose fights for affordable housing now, as We Stay! originated in this neighborhood. According to Curbed’s article “Bronx Commons, Melrose’s All-Affordable Housing Complex, Breaks Ground,” this housing project will offer 305 affordable apartments, 5% of which are dedicated to families living in shelters (Warerkar). It will also include a music hall, a beacon to cultivate a lively community life. Interestingly enough, this development is situated on the last empty plot of land left over from the original Melrose Commons plan devised by We Stay!. Thus, we can see the legacy of Yolanda García continue as Melrose not only maintains affordability, but pays homage to the Bronx being a cultural mecca of New York City.

Works Cited

Angotti, Tom. “From Protest to Community Plan” and “Community Planning for the Few.” New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, MIT Press, 2011.

Class Divide. Dir. Marc Levin. Blowback Productions, 2015. HBO.

Warerkar, Tanay. “Bronx Commons, Melrose’s All-Affordable Housing Complex, Breaks Ground.” Curbed New York, 2017 Jan. 13, ny.curbed.com/2017/1/13/14263544/bronx-commons-melrose-affordable-housing-music-hall-groundbreaking.

Zukin, Sharon. Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. Oxford University Press, 2011.