All posts by ashwinijchawla

Hip Hop Revolution Exhibition Reflection

April 28, 2015Uncategorizedhip hop revolutionashwinijchawla

The factors that go into the creation of a cultural era are explored and brought to life in the Hip Hop Revolution exhibition at the Museum of the City of New York. The exhibition includes multiple seen and unseen facets of the contributions to the hip hop culture that arose in New York City in the early 1970s. The exhibit is divided by the respective photographers and their own perspectives of the revolution. Janette Beckman’s photographs incorporate the popular, mainstream images of the faces behind the movement, or rather the artists that perpetuated a new era of music. Photographs autographed by some of hip hop’s top artists such as Salt N Pepa, Afrika Bambaataa, LL Cool J, and Flava Flav welcome the viewer upon entering the exhibit. Additionally, Beckman’s photographs reveal a different side to hip hop, for its origins began as an outlet to promote positive messages to the youth.

It was interesting to see that the early development of hip hop was supportive of anti-drug campaigns, and some of the earliest pioneers sought out to promote this to the youth, such as Big Daddy Kane who went on to tour throughout New York City high schools with this anti-drug sentiment. This sharply contrasts what hip hop’s reputation encompasses today, for many songs promote violence and the acquisition of drugs, money, and women.

Of course, not every movement is ushered in without a few obstacles along the way, and so the second part of the exhibit, photographs by Martha Cooper and Joe Conzo, display the realities behind the struggles for those in the hip hop revolution. One photo in particular by Martha Cooper caught my attention, for it showed transit cops holding confiscated items from break dancers.

Often times, the gatherings for early hip hop goers were considered to be riots by the authorities. In Cooper’s photographs above, authorities found weapons and graffiti paraphernalia at one such “riot” in Washington Heights. The realism of hip hop came to light as such gatherings became more popular.People came together to celebrate a new platform for new talent and musical innovation but were met with charges of public disturbance in the process.

Hip hop brought a voice to address issues of racism and prejudice which eventually led to its success, as a genre and culture that people could relate to. Hip Hop has expanded today to serve as an outlet for contemporary emotions for artists of all races and genders, and sometimes this means serving as a platform for promoting negative messages. However, the origins of hip hop serve as remnants of ideas of positive messages to address issues that call for action.

Project Update March 24, 2015

March 25, 2015The Future of Major Private DevelopmentEast Harlem, el barrio unite, gentrificationashwinijchawla

Last week’s post by Amanda covered most of the climatic events that occurred last week. As the writer of this week’s project update I can say that this has been a transitionary week for our group, as we have completed many of our project goals in the past and are looking forward to completing even more beginning next week. This week has been fairly anticlimactic, in the sense that most of our events has passed or are coming up. Abhishek had suggested an event that would be relevant to our group that we will be attending later this month. This exhibition titled “Uneven Growth NYC” at the Museum of Modern Art will be attended by several of our group members, but not all. As the past project updates have stated, trying to attend an event as a whole group has proved to be quite difficult.

However, the communication between our group is our key point of strength and thanks to many social media sharing platforms we have been able to connect with each other’s ideas and build upon them. The Facebook messenger platform continues to be our consistent method to relay information in the group and for the any large chunks of information we now have a google document that Abhishek has created. This relates back to the earliest days of our group’s interactions where we used a google document created by Amanda to create our first assignment-the project brief. We are hoping to see success in utilizing google docs again.

Lastly, we have another event for El Barrio Unite coming up this Saturday in East Harlem. From last week’s experience with the Community Board meeting that Gisella and I attended, the emotional aspect to this project is becoming more clear as we delve deeper into it. The community board meeting was heavily raucous at times due to the attendee’s passion and strong opinions towards the speakers at the meeting. One man in particular was cheered on by the crowd but was abruptly cut off by the community board panel for taking up too much time. He spoke of his humble beginnings, growing up in the poor conditions of East Harlem. He said that as he grew older he had the motivation to find a good job, yet no one would give him an opportunity to prove his worth. He spoke of an organization in East Harlem that finally gave him a shot in the field of construction. He worked his way up from starting out as a painter, electrician, and handyman that worked for less than minimum wage to now making $50 per hour. The crowd cheered for his success story but it was clear that the community board wanted to calm any sense of entitlement that stirred the crowd before things got too wild. The overall vibe from the meeting brought a deeper level of investigation into this topic, for now we are beginning to see the realities of the consequences that stem from the rapid gentrification of East Harlem first hand.

Urbanization as Exploitation

March 24, 2015The Right to the/Just Cityskiing, urbanizationashwinijchawla

As inhabitants of the Earth, it is our natural born right to mold and shape the land that serves as our home. This land provides shelter for many people, but not all of them have a say in how it is used. David Harvey’s chapter on the exploitation of land touches on the modern exploitative nature of forced urbanization by the top tiered form of modern oligarchy. In today’s society this oligarchy is determined by income. Those with fatter wallets have their opinions heard because money talks in a society where poor people are neglected due to their inability to compete with richer contemporaries. Terms such as “gentrification” have been used to describe the process of displacing the unwanted to make room for the desirables, however this term has become somewhat of a euphemism due to the unforeseen consequences that accompany this eviction.

As David Harvey explains, capitalistic greed comes into play as a major advocate for urbanization. The potential profits that lie in serving the rich by stealing from the poor allow capitalists to encroach upon land that serves the poor. One particular case is quite tragic and comedic, that is the rapid urbanization of Abu Dhabi. Harvey points out that the capitalist surplus that has arisen from the oil wealth of the Middle east has converged into a wasteful land full of pointlessly extravagant entertainment for those that can afford it (such as the indoor ski slope in the middle of the Middle Eastern desert climate). It is clear that there is more than enough money in the world to help serve the entire population, but it is in the wrong hands.

Another problem with these cities is diversity. Jacobs argues that a typical city which is loved by its inhabitants is full of congestion, interactions with strangers, and has mixed uses. In my opinion, this diversity in the modern sense does not translate into reality. A congested city, like New York City is susceptible to becoming dirty, dingy, and abused. Interactions with strangers can quickly become filled with racial and social tensions due to the class divide that can stem from such a diverse population. In diverse populations, someone always has to be at the bottom, and often times and entire group of people can be stepped on by the more successful groups. Statistically, in such a diverse and large population a bell curve distribution can occur. Some people are at the lowest income levels, while others reap the benefits of being at the very top. Most people just live their lives as average Joes in a city that is too congested to be able to serve everyone equally. Of course, many cities like this have developed across the world, most notably Abu Dhabi in the most recent decade. In this city only the top tiered income and the upper average Joes can take their skis to the luxurious unnecessary ski slope in the middle of the desert.

Discussion Question: Can the effects of urbanization be molded to benefit an entire population and not just a top tiered group of people, separated by wealth?

Before:

After:

Reading Response #4: Specificity Vs. Ambiguity

March 17, 2015Community, Part 2: Organizing and Planningambiguity, specificity, urban planningashwinijchawla

This week’s readings themes seemed to echo the importance of serving individual components of a city, rather than creating solutions for the masses. They also brought attention to the differences that can result from ambiguity and specificity when dealing with urban planning.

In Tom Angotti’s article it is clear that the focus is in regards to community planning and political regulations. For example, in his discussion of finding a solution to provide proper land use, Angotti describes the unfair distribution of land that has a tendency to be influenced by the real estate market. In New York City the majority of the population either pays more rent than they can afford, or cannot afford to pay the rent rates at all. Tom Angotti’s article also discusses his criticism for the U.S. rational-comprehensive planning model, in which he brings attention to its main flaw- proposing a solution that favors the upper class while failing to mitigate the problems of the working class minority groups. In this type of proposal, power is given to the wrong hands and the distribution of the resulting benefits is skewed. In this case, Angotti is referring to the ambiguity that stems from such plans. This vagueness allows for several loopholes in a program where the needs of minorities in a community can be severely neglected. There must be a way to build good communities for all, and not just for the upper classes, but what really defines a community? The entire community can benefit from a plan only when its specific components that make it a whole are considered.

In DeRienzo’s article, the specificity of each portion of a community is addressed in detail, giving each part the importance it calls for. It seems as though DeRienzo’s article is resolving the flaws Angotti criticizes in his article, especially focusing on the importance of creating a proposal that serves each part of a community. For a community to exist it must have fundamental proponents so that it is self sufficient and functioning. A key part of this is interdependence. It is this interdependence that creates a natural flow in the population that requires all of its parts to work effectively and fluently. When one part of a community is overlooked, or rather neglected, in terms of housing plans in New York City, the entire community can suffer as a result. Thus, both articles call attention to the need for recognizing the individuality of communities in New York City that may not have the economic ability to have their voice heard.

Discussion Question: When and how can we stop neglecting the needs of those who are not in power? If power is given to those whose voice is not heard will the power struggle shift in the direction of the opposite side of the spectrum? (In this case by giving the power of planning to the poor, will the rich then suffer?)

Reading Response #3

March 15, 2015Community, Part 1: Development and Controlminority removal, race relationsashwinijchawla

The role of the community is quickly vanishing as larger complex urban cities encroach upon areas that were once self reliant havens for the working class. It is no secret that the small communities, especially in New York City, serve as the home for many minority groups. In the first chapter of this week’s reading, the authors’s discussion of labor as a commodity is quite intriguing, in the sense that the driving force behind these growing urban areas is a luxury in itself. In order to arrive to work every morning, workers need a home to sleep in every night. In New York City, these homes take shape in areas where thousands of minority workers create small communities where other members of their race or ethnicity groups also reside. In East Harlem, members of these small communities openly protest when their homes are in danger of being displaced to make room for private development projects that cater to the rich. The importance of catering to the working class is lost as the private developments continue to win their case of perpetual encroachment.

The second chapter by Alice O’Connor the flaws of the federal government’s role in facilitating the preservation of small communities is highlighted by revisiting past mistakes. In order to keep these small communities the greed and desire to create a complex commercialized city must be controlled and balanced. New York City has the potential to become an urban city that serves as a home for private luxurious developments and the minority groups that are veterans to the five boroughs, especially in Manhattan. In the film “Whose Barrio” the necessity for a small communities is showcased through the actions of the residents themselves. The morality involved in displacing thousands of people to make room for luxury condos is skewed, for the fundamental ethics behind real estate encroachment in favor of the rich is just plain wrong. Unfortunately, there seems to be problems with every proposed solution to provide homes for both the growing communities of the rich, poor, and working class. This week’s readings related back to the original problems we discussed in Fullilove’s reading that depicted urban renewal as “negro removal.” In the past, displacement of African American communities have had ripple effects that resulted in prejudiced racial relations. These kinds of prejudices must be taken into account for when trying to develop a city with such a diverse population. It is not an easy task to allow for the equal treatment of all, but the basic right to housing should at the least be allotted to all. However, many factors come into play when trying to house a population, especially, racial and social factors. Thus, New York City is the perfect example of the present day’s urban renewal transforming into “minority removal.”

Discussion Question: What validates a class or a group of people to distribute housing according to their liking? Since affordability is a man made concept, what can we do to bridge the gap between affordability and reality?

Reading Response #2

March 8, 2015The Capital of Capital, Part 2ashwinijchawla

The underlying theme of all three readings this week is most definitely the consequences that stem from greed. New York City is becoming a society that tends to the needs of the rich while neglecting the poor and middle class. The term “middle class” is being skewed since even those considered to be in the middle class may not even be able to afford “affordable housing.” Mayor de Blasio’s inclusionary zoning plan is a plan that is bound to fail, in the sense that it will fail to fulfill the needs of the majority of New York City’s population. However, the plan will succeed in becoming a driving force for gentrification.

A plan that is pleasing the rich while stealing from the poor is not a plan at all, but rather a ploy. The theoretical poetic goals of “inclusionary zoning” seem to be masking the realities that will ensue once the plan is implemented. In Stein’s article on de Blasio’s Doomed Plan, Tom Angotti’s statement speaks truths that go far beyond the present day plans for urban renewal. “In areas with high land values, the new inclusionary development will just feed the fire of gentrification.” (Stein 2014) The process of gentrification is very much like the creation of fire. First, you must have oxygen, which in this case is the vast land of New York City that is being taken up by low income earners. Second, you must have a spark to ignite the fire. The spark in this case takes shape in the form of the greedy private developers that see the land as an opportunity for their own monetary benefits. Lastly, in order to keep a fire going you have to have a situation in which people allow it to burn. Here, it is the wealthy elite of New York City that are being attracted to neighborhoods they would have never taken a second look at if the low wage earners were still living in them. To allow the fire of gentrification to burn, you must displace the poor and convince the wealthy to move into the neighborhoods that once belonged to low income New Yorkers. The fire of gentrification is only being fueled by de Blasio’s plan because it is truly allowing people to watch their once culturally rich communities vanish and transform into luxury estates for the elite.

The concerns of the the residents in the neighborhoods that will soon be gentrified are quite valid, for their voice is lost among those with fatter wallets. Private developers must be forced to allow for units to be priced below their expectations because in the world of business the greater good is ignored to achieve the highest monetary gain. In last week’s movie “Whose Barrio?” the actual ripples of gentrification were depicted by the very blunt statements of the residents in East Harlem. The crowd that is being targeted by private developers provide a stiff competition, for their wallets are much fatter than the current residents with low incomes. Thus, it is the power of fatter wallets that have succeeded in driving out the residents struggling to keep their homes from being sucked up into the fire of gentrification. Money talks, and when it does, it is heard. Despite the political and financial aspects of trying to create affordable housing, the race and class relations that come about in gentrifying neighborhoods must be considered. Even if there are affordable units in a luxury building, what are the chances that they will be filled with the residents that once lived on that land?

Discussion Question: Can housing ever become affordable in a society where the rich may not even want to mingle with the poor?

Reading Response #1: A Solution For Failed Urban Renewal Programs

February 18, 2015Roots of Community Planningrenewalashwinijchawla

Clearing slums and placing modern, luxury developments in their place seems so poetic by nature but in reality is destructive and is often met with ethical concerns.

“At the outset, urban renewal inspired the imagination of the country, and abroad coalition of industry, labor, and community groups supported the program. As urban renewal unfurled, however, community opposition grew.” (Fullilove 73)

The aforementioned quote from this week’s reading showcases how a plan that begins with a good intent can be met with adversities solely based on how it is brought about. The antiurban renewal movement that ensued after the Urban Renewal Act of 1949 was set into motion illustrates how people can dispel the greater good for their own benefit. If modern buildings were erected in place of slums this action could soon eradicate old buildings and slums altogether. However, due to the nature in which these urban renewal plans were undertaken, the greater good was masked by the problems of poverty and overcrowding in the slum areas. The ghettos housed a majority of African Americans and provided shelter for many poor people who could not afford single family accommodations.

After reading this week’s article, it seems as though the urban renewal projects did more harm than good, but I believe that it is due to the nature in which they were carried out. For example, the author lists three reasons on how urban renewal could affect health: causing trauma, exposing people to illness fostering environments, and taking away basic freedoms by moving people without giving them a choice. I believe that all three problems can be solved if urban renewal plans involved erecting new, modern communities and not just new buildings. If the programs offered people new homes, new jobs, and education for those who were unemployed then this would allow people to choose if they wanted to move and seek better opportunities. The urban renewal plans could also allow for the migration and settlement of a community as a whole. If segregation through forced housing was a problem, the urban renewal plans should provide a choice for people to live in places away from the heavily populated cities and settle further into the mainland. This suggested plan is similar to the Homestead Act of 1862 that accelerated the settlement of the Western United States by providing people with an incentive to move. I believe that if people were given a choice of moving to a new life filled with opportunities for their entire families, more people would be on the bandwagon for the urban renewal projects.

Discussion Question: Can urban renewal continue to be a positive constructive force in the 21st century without being “minority removal”? Is it possible to allow the settlement of people with opportunities for social advancement along with basic housing?