In a continuation of last week’s discussion, Larson describes planning strategies in New York that are shaping as a result of density and growth, as well as a need for New York to function as a growth machine. Bloomberg’s planning strategy, as outlined by Larson, would be to combine the super planning efforts of Moses, while maintaining the needs of communities, as advocated for by Jacobs. De Blasio’s plan would be an even further attempt at these ideals. It would incorporate “Inclusionary Housing” as part of rezoning in order to maintain affordability for low income residents.
Smith, however, is skeptical of these idealized solutions that would attempt to maintain low income housing within private developments. The term “inclusionary housing” in itself is a paradox; developers cannot call housing “inclusionary” if it is built upon a previous low income housing site, displaces those who once lived there, and is not affordable for those in need of affordable housing. “Inclusionary Housing” as a development strategy acts more as an appeasing method for private developers within the growth machine, as a way to ensure acceptance of developing within neighborhoods doomed to gentrification. The lower income housing within private developments does not consider those who would live there, as the majority of these units would be sold or rented to more wealthy residents, reflecting a shifting demographic within entire neighborhoods.
Smith’s article is particularly relevant within the context of this class, and most clearly puts the historical context of past readings within perspective to our own projects. However, his article was clearest within its proposed alternatives to inclusionary housing in private development. We already know that inclusionary development is harmful. Smith’s article closes with several initiatives, including the Community Land Trust, a planning strategy for community members to reclaim control of developed land. New York’s First Community Land Trust, as explained by Angotti, developed as a response to an urban renewal plan in 1959. In the 1970s, the CLT model took off as a means of combatting removal of government subsidized housing under the Cooper Square Committee. The Committee aims to maintain affordable housing and diversity within the Cooper Square area, specifically. Initiatives like this have so far proved successful because they separate land ownership from building ownership, and function to provide for residents and the needs of specific communities. A similar community land trust is currently developing in East Harlem, in response to the East River Plaza Development.
Smith’s article has proven that community planning is the best initiative to take on private development. Private Development, however, appears inevitable, along with its development of “inclusionary housing”. Is there a better way for private developers to gauge what constitutes low income on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis? To what extent can private developers meet an individual community’s needs?
