One focus of our project is Melrose Commons. We chose Melrose Commons because the challenges it has faced are similar to the issues we are currently seeing. One main issue we are seeing with community gardens today is that they are being redeveloped without the consent of the community. Similarly, in the 1980s and 1990s, the city was planning on redeveloping the South Bronx before consulting the community members. After this, in 1991, the Bronx Center Projected started the Melrose Commons Urban Renewal Plan. When this plan was brought to the public, it was met with disapproval. The plan would originally displace thousands of current residents. To counter this, a member of the community, Yolanda Garcia, formed Nos Quedamos to organize the community and keep everyone informed of developments in the planning agenda. They worked along the City Council and resisted large scale urban renewal plans in order to develop a plan that to benefit the existing community and allow for further growth. Since this time, Melrose Commons has been praised by a variety of organizations such as the ADPSR, the National Civic Council, and the LEED Gold certification from the U.S. Green Building Council. This development has continued to be successful, which is why it is a good role model for community garden activists working with the city. Melrose Commons is a wonderful example of how affordable housing and green spaces can and should coexist instead of being in opposition to each other.

Another issue is the lack of political recognition. One issue with out white paper was why we wanted to include the history of NYC’s 1970 fiscal crisis. Community gardens have been developed as a quick fix for people (typically poor people) that lack food. Then these gardens are abandoned once political support dies out. The government liked the idea of community gardens because it beautified run-down areas. However, the opportunity of using this land, as a way to make more money was too good to pass up, to the city opted to redevelop that land. The financial appeal has outweighed the complaints of the communities, which is another problem we hope to address.

Mapping out the organization of the political system regarding community gardens as well as mapping out the possible ways of reform helped us to determine a better way to address these problems in our paper. We were able to clearly map out alternative sources of funding, which was one of the problems brought to our attention during our white paper presentation. Our goal is to now find a clear way to express the problems with community boards and City Council so that people outside of these communities can relate and empathize with them.

We still have not been able to get in contact with Ray Figueroa about connecting to a Melrose Gardens local, but we still hope to do so. Once we can contact a local, we intend to find out what they know of the problems with community gardens, how they feel about such problems, and how community gardens have affected their lives. We also were not able to attend the “Gardens Under Threat Ride,” but we plan on contacting the organizer of the event to possibly use any pictures or videos that were taken on our website. We will be filming a video based on the television show Parks and Recreation in order to make a more relatable source of information for the public. This will be our public interest piece, and will go on the website that we have created.

Reference:

http://www.maparchitects.com/melrose-commons-timeline/
http://www.plannersnetwork.org/magazine-publications/case-studies-and-working-papers/melrose-commons-a-case-study-for-sustainable-community-design/
http://www.grownyc.org/files/GrowNYC_CommunityGardenReport.pdf