The “Origins of Public Health Collapse in New York City” article outlined the recent history and causes of disintegration and dispersal among overpopulated urban communities. Notably in areas such as the South Bronx, Central Harlem, and Inwood, the late 70s into the 1980s experienced abandonment of housing in minority-concentrated areas as well as the transfer of populations into other parts of the city. Interesting to observe is the relationship between these movements and the fire departments efforts to control fire incidents in the communities. In what Wallace terms the “abandonment epidemic”, fires were more likely to start in overcrowded units, where there is generally more concentrated human activity (i.e. more cooking going on, electricity being used, etc.). Coupled with the cutting of fire services to these areas of urgency, it seems almost inevitable that the 70s and 80s were marked by the reorganization of dense urban populations. And while the government was clearly aware of the issue and attempted at addressing it long before–in the opening of 20 new fire companies in 1969–later actions proved to not only counter but supplant any positive efforts made.
The solution implied here is that in densely populated urban communities, services made towards the safety and living conditions of residents should not be taken for granted. Rather, in order to prevent the disintegration of these communities and its subsequent social effects, services should be increased as needed. To accommodate for the number of fire incidents that take place in any given neighborhood, the effectiveness and quantity of fire services must be raised accordingly. In my opinion, this is the most direct way of deterring problems similar to the South Bronx example. However, it is only one. I believe that combatting urban decay in areas desperate on services for their survival should rely on multiple solutions. Without alternatives, the community may not pull through due to drawbacks on budgeting or other financial complications.
Therefore, another solution is to address the root of the fire incidents so as to lessen the likelihood of fire incidents occurring in the first place: overpopulation. I am not suggesting that the residents be moved elsewhere but rather that the residences themselves be altered in order to let each person or family occupy more space in the same location. Instead of multiple families living in crammed apartments where electrical usage runs high on each floor, each family would have ample amount of space in the buildings, spreading the activity of fire hazards and lessening the chance of fires. To maintain the neighborhood’s boundaries and overall mapping of the city’s demographics, the expansion of space would not be horizontal but vertical; in other words, taller buildings with wider apartments. Because I am not an architect or civil engineer, this idea is purely speculation. I wonder if designing such a residence would minimize population density (as I want to believe it would) or if it wouldn’t change the density/issue of overpopulation at all or, moreover, if it would change the understanding of population density itself (since the assumption that many people concentrated in one area live in close quarters would not hold true in this situation).
