All posts by amandasarantos

Reshaping the City

The Right to the/Just City

This weeks readings again suggest the contradictory nature of urban planning and community involvement. Both articles, as well as the Stein article question who the city is for, and who has the power to shape it.

Harvey defines the right to the city as “to claim some kind of shaping power over the process of urbanization”, which we started talking about as a response to development of the city in terms of displacement and growth. Urbanization, however, as Harvey points out, is a result of capital growth and surplus- urbanization is supposed to prompt more growth. The reference to large scale urban planning brings about modern issues of uneven growth, as Robert Moses rethought structuring cities, and reshaped New York on a more holistic level, or on a broader scale. This seems like the “placeless” planning referenced in last weeks article on community response to private development.

The Smith article in this week’s announcement section puts these ideas directly in context, and discusses a mayor who is currently attempting to reshape the city. Mayor De Blasio is not as progressive as he claims to be, especially in terms of urban planning. What he is selling himself as, a liberal political leader fighting for equality in housing, is far from the truth. Smith cites a coalition established in Chinatown who proposed rezoning recommendations, yet were rejected because it preserved too much affordable housing. Private developments must incorporate inclusionary housing, but it is clear where urban planning priorities lie- development and restructuring the city must also contribute to growth. “Quality of urban life has become a commodity for those with money”, as Smith puts it. And why shouldn’t it, given the goals of urbanization. Under capitalism, it makes no sense for city planners to contribute toward the needs and consider the input of actual communities.

The solution to this is unclear. If the right to a city is establishing democratic control over the deployment of surplus, how can this be accomplished if land holds do much value in New York? A return of control back to communities seems implausible in a neoliberal society. Engel’s ideas date back to 1872, but resonate through so called progressives, from Bloomberg to De Blasio. Is full-scale urban revolution even possible? Is there any way to return control of capital surplus to those it would affect, or is this counterintuitive?

The Politics of Place

The Politics of Place, Oppression, and Privilege

This week takes a new approach to defining community, and brings into question the politics of place. Instead of just using a community as a standard, Hayden investigates the built environment as questioning for who the city is for and who it belongs to. This characteristic is especially interesting within the urban setting, and in new york, because of continuous growth the city is experiencing at the hands of both private developers as well as federal and local government.  Space is a cultural product that indicates both identity and history of certain group, while revealing specific social connotations (“knowing one’s place”, a woman’s place”). Hayden argues that preserving the memory of place  is not enough, and that public space is necessary and must foster a need for maintaining diversity and culture.   Having “Place” is then defined as a privilege by Young, and those who have limited access to space do no get an equal hand in shaping social reproduction and a full spectrum of economic and political rights. Young states that terms like “sprawl” are applicable specifically to a privileged class, as urban centers continuously reveal growing minority, low income populations.

However, these notions are tested in what we’ve been talking about as gentrification. In a city as a growth machine, with very limited access to land, growth must occur in neighborhoods that may be considered “undesirable” or that “need fixing anyway”. Place then becomes a political matter, as land is seized by those who can afford it and used in a manner which Hayden would argue does not consider its social impacts.  We’ve been discussing the role of the government in city planning, yet are facing a situation of a shifting focus to private development at the hands of a neoliberal economy. New ownership of space is what is then used to exploit and oppress certain people within these communities. While they might be part of the labor force that takes on developments, these developments shape how the city grows, with little public investment. Gentrification drives rents up, destroys the identity of place, and makes these places unsuitable for those who lived in  them initially. “Placeless” planning, as Hayden would define it, can not meet the needs of an existing community, contributing to marginalization of people within their own communities.

We should consider whether De Blasio’s inclusionary housing plan actually considers the politics of place. As understood in Smith’s article from  few weeks ago, it doesn’t at all. Proposed developments are not for communities but for market growth within a capitalist economy. “Inclusionary Housing” is not in fact inclusionary, as it must be discussed in terms of a larger built environment- the entire architectural landscape of a community, what existed before development, as well as a shifting political and demographic situation.

To what extent is public space in the hands of communities?   Is any form of community  planning able counter “Placeless” planning? How can we ensure economic diversity in preservation?

 

Community Part 1

Community, Part 1: Development and Control

In “Communities Develop”, James DeFelippis and Susan Seagert offer deep insights into the role as well as the inner workings of the concept of “community”. Their ideas on the function of communities, and how these may exist within a modern, urban setting, are different from anything we have discussed so far.  DeFelippis and Seagert propose that the role of community should not exist within the urban setting, as urbanization acts as a strategy for capitalist growth. These communities within urban centers then act upon consumerist routines which ultimately buy right back into capitalism.  This chapter then touches on what may arise when a community’s needs are not being met by this model, “community development”, as the the focus of O’Connor’s chapter, as well as the seeming context of this class.

Alice O’Connor’s chapter instead focuses in on the rise of community development, and how it has been a response to issues, namely poverty, that arise within individual communities. O’Connor is a Professor of public policy, and focuses specifically on social policy regarding poverty. Public Policy, according to this chapter, is at war with the actual needs of community,  and reinstates issues of poverty, segregation, and general lack of well being. Federal spending then cannot simply repair all the damages within communities as a result of rapid industrialization and growth. Limited government interference is what puts into question the role of development as a volunteer effort rather than a federal responsibility, or what constitutes “public” and “private”. America has this strange culture which associates “private” as something exclusive, and valuable, which goes further to promote two tier urbanism, as well as the exclusion of low income and minority populations from planning processes.  O’Connor also cited the New Deal as a failed federal strategy to revive communities. The New Deal, as a large scale project to revive local economy,  was not specific enough in what funding could be used for. In not citing where the funds would be allocated, the New Deal worked as a means of attaining home ownership and upward growth for Americans. This plan was only viable for the middle class, and its goal of revitalizing struggling communities was not met.  Later on, urban renewal would be the developed strategy to “cure the problem of  poverty”  within cities.

These articles helped lay the groundwork for what we are currently studying. They put the current situation of cities as well as the economic divide into context.

 

Update 3/18

The Future of Major Private Development

I think last week, Jamine’s post covered most of our goals as a group very specifically. Our project design hasn’t changed, but this week we were able to use the update and proposal as a guide for how we’re currently working through our project.

A general meeting for community board 11 was held last night, and was attended by Gisella and Ashwini. Because it wasn’t specific to development in east Harlem, there wasn’t much for our group to take away to shape our design, but they noted an interesting dynamic during the meeting. They reported that the community members were given less time than city council members to speak, yet were shown much more support from other community members. El Barrio representatives do attend these meetings and made one of the brief announcements on the East River Plaza Developments. They distributed two flyers, a fact sheet and one advertising a community meeting specific to the East River Plaza Plan on March 28, which we plan on attending.

We were also able to delegate specific tasks to individual group members in order to submit the proposed deliverables. We’ll be divided between the popular education product, a case study of historical research, and a letter to Council Speaker Melissa Mark Viverito. We then need to come up with a more concise plan for distributing letters. Abhishek has already been working through his case study portion on Greenpoint of the analysis, and we will all use the thesis paper sent by N.E.R.V.E. as well as the class readings in order to construct a more holistic investigation. This information will be filtered down into our popular education products: a pamphlet, a flyer and a film. We’ve also found zoning permits requested by the developer of the East River Plaza.

Communication has been very successful between all group members, though we’ve found it difficult to all meet at once, which is our goal when we meet with our community contact again. We’d like to schedule a second meeting before spring break in order to discuss our PAR. All members of the group have been able to attend events, so far several community board meetings as well as meeting with our contacts.

I’ve found that eastharlempreservation.org has been an incredibly helpful resource; it’s updated nearly every day with articles particularly relevant to development within east harlem. The link to the site’s news articles is below.­­­ Their most recent article, from March 15, discusses a permit filed to build a 23 story residential development on 103rd st.

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2015/03/16/108-units-coming-to-east-harlem/

 

http://eastharlempreservation.org/private-development-real-estate/

 

They also have a section specific to the East River Plaza Development

 

http://eastharlempreservation.org/private-development-real-estate/east-river-plaza/

 

 

Calendar of El Barrio Unite Events:

 

http://www.elbarriounite.org/important-upcoming-community-events/

 

 

The Capital of Capital, Part 2

The Capital of Capital, Part 2

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?

Development of American Cities

What's Taking Shape?

Income disparity and the idea of a vast gap between the upper and lower classes can be traced back to the very development of American cities. As stated in this article, cities originally developed as a machine for economic growth, especially after the industrial revolution. City production, however, was reliant on the capital of immigrant workers. As low income immigrant communities grew in large American cities, the American economy expanded through big businesses. Starting in the post war era, and the age of the automobile, the middle class was able to exit cities in favor of suburbs, with goals like home ownership.This was what truly revealed the style of two tier urbanism we see today.  North American cities, as particularly noticeable in New York City, are comprised of the country’s most poor and most rich. The very center of urban life is reliant on an enormous working class, yet increased cost of living, as well as a income growth in only the 1% makes it near impossible for New York’s working class to maintain life in cities. Another issue is the idea of how we account for a changing middle class. Though out of the picture while discussing two tier urbanism, New York’s middle class contributes to the idea of isolation from this 1%, yet today’s middle class cannot be compared to that during the growth of cities.

A rising generation of America’s middle class is turning away from this once attainable ideal of home ownership, which was common during the age of urban sprawl. Is urban sprawl still relevant  and viable for today’s middle class? How can we better suit the city to fit the needs of a modern working class? What are the politics shaping this?