In the chapter “From Dislocation to Resistance”, the author illustrates how urban renewal gradually received a certain stigma. While the purpose of urban renewal is to improve underdeveloped areas in the city in order to produce a better environment and encourage economic growth, the urban renewal projects of the past produced different results. Most often, people in these underdeveloped areas were displaced with no compensation and no where else to go. Mostly African Americans got the short end of the stick in the process and urban renewal eventually became known as “Negro removal.” Displaced blacks led to the convergence of a lower class community creating the city of Harlem. The tipping point theory proved that the cities were subjected to this vicious circle, where urban renewal fueled segregated, colored communities and these underdeveloped communities fueled urban renewal. The purpose of urban renewal was never successfully achieved.

However, what seemed to work best for New York City was when “immigrant groups set up mutual aid societies that provided services to [their] communities…” An example of this was when Finish immigrant workers built limited equity cooperative apartments. The Housing Act was successful because it allowed for the involvement of the residents. I believe that we should take a deeper look at union sponsored housing developments. There is a lesson to be learned from the crisis of Coop City and organizing a detailed agenda answering questions about privatization, equity gains, and marketing of the projects seems to hypothetically solve the issues of the crisis. For many years, urban renewal has been influenced by the real estate industry and other large corporations, and thus creating a divide between race and class. Eliminating this influence and allowing communities to take control of their own progress and development might allow for a more successful outcome.

Discussion question: How plausible is the idea of union-sponsored housing projects?