All posts by Brett Barshay

About Brett Barshay

I am currently a student at the Bernard and Anne Spitzer School of Architecture at the City College of New York.

RR: PAR

On PAR, Uncategorized

The reading, Banking on Vacancy: Homelessness and Real Estate Speculation, a report by Picture The Homeless (PTH) effectively summarized the many issues with the housing crisis. The data and statistics discussed in the report are all incredibly striking. It introduces the topic with the statistic of vacant buildings and lots and the amount of people that potentially can be housed in these spaces: 3,551 vacant buildings and 2,489 vacant lots can house a total of 199,981 people. How can a city permit this to happen when homelessness is on the rise?

The city has been developed to promote a free-market economy and the commoditization of property. These spaces are primarily privately owned buildings and lots, with a mere 10% of these properties being owned by the government. Even the vacant publicly owned buildings are not being renovated and developed into function public spaces or affordable housing. The vacant spaces that are privately owned are nearly impossible to overturn into affordable housing and remain as unusable structures. These real estate tycoons warehouse these properties as investments that they sit on until the market deems it profitable to convert these spaces into market-rate real estate. Frequently these buildings will have a commercial tenants, but vacant apartments because the owners obtain enough profit from the store-front without dealing with the “hassle” of residential tenants. Property warehousers do not provide any benefit to the community, they only neglect the needs of the community and the people by maintaining these properties for their personal gain. Additionally, PTH points out the correlation of the location of homeless folks and vacant property. The 10 community districts from which the majority of homeless folks come from also have the highest density of vacant property in the city. Finally, the expense of the government for the homeless shelter institution is dramatically excessive. The city spends about $3,500 a month to house someone in a shelter which accumulates to an annual expense of $856 million. Clearly, the system in place does not solve the housing crisis, but simply diverts it with temporary housing. The government must begin developing permanent affordable housing for homeless folks which will ultimately reduce the annual expenses of the city for the shelter system.

Picture The Homeless’s report also details numerous solutions and policies that could be enacted to solve the housing crisis. Their recommendations, as listed in the report are: end warehousing, pass legislation that would mandate a city wide count of vacant property, introducing three year vacancy limit on private property, developing more Community Land Trusts, make information on housing and ownership more available, altering the Area Median Income policy for affordable housing, exposing the true identity of private owners of vacant property, and cataloguing a thorough data set of partially vacant building. All of these recommendations must be set in place in order to adjust the housing system to provide better housing. However, not all of them can be enacted on at the same time. In my opinion, the most effective method would be targeting the government’s budget for the homeless shelter system. There has to be a progressive rotation of shelter properties into affordable permanent housing. Before affordable housing is developed, the city must localize the AMI policy so that the rents are not incredibly skewed by higher income residents as well as introducing an annual vacancy count.  Once all affordable housing is truly affordable, then the government should begin developing affordable permanent housing from the vacant properties that it owns as a way to test out if it is effective. Once it is proven to be an effective policy, then the government should begin acquiring properties that have been vacant for excessive periods of time so that private owners begin renting out vacant apartments and more affordable housing can be developed from the appropriated properties. Thousands of New Yorkers have been anticipating the adjustment of the housing system in the city, which is finally so close to happening.

 

 

 

RR2: A Classic Story of New York Urbanization

"The Patron Saint" and "The Git'r Done Man"

Being an architecture major, we are made familiar to the dynamic duo of Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs from the start. These two titanic forces in New York City’s history of urban planning portray opposite opinions on the development of cities. Moses is notorious for his rapid modernization of NYC throughout his thirty four year long rein as an urban planner through various positions.  His vision was far more advanced than what the citizens envisioned. Moses was well aware that modernization and auto-mobilizing the city would be key to its success against the suburban menace. By implementing countless infrastructural reforms he was able to advance New York City into the next tier of global cultural centers. However, he did so inhumanely. Moses relentlessly dislocated hundreds of thousands of lower class new yorkers in order to build his various highways, housing projects, and park system. His redevelopment of New York led to many neighborhoods’ extinction and destruction of their local vibe. Although these projects were integral for the city’s advance, many people wondered if this unforgiving redevelopment could have occurred without disturbing so many citizens. Moses’ greatest opponent was found in the form of a Greenwich Village native named Jane Jacobs. She recognized the adverse effects of Moses’ revitalization and publicly spoke out against his projects. Jacobs made it her goal to preserve the people, culture, and feel of neighborhoods. Personally, I find Moses’ reformation to be a necessary evil, it is quite difficult to imagine a New York City without the countless projects he made happen. And Jacobs’ position on Moses’ projects i find to be the necessary response to the revitalization process. Urban revitalization is a two-way street, and a city must develop new infrastructure in order to fix its issues, coincidentally it brings about new social issues. When considering New York today we have to keep in mind the many positions on revitalization and gentrification.

Question: How do you implant new, necessary, infrastructure without disturbing the people? How can we develop housing projects that will reduce social stigma against them and better the lives of the lower class? A major issue with affordable housing is that many residents must maintain an annual income of a certain regulation in order to stay in the housing project. This prevents residents from growing out of poverty and easing their way into a higher socioeconomic class. How can we avoid this? What are some methods for residents of affordable housing projects to comfortably work their way up the class ladder?

The Turning Point: Developing Reforms for New York City

What's Taking Shape?

I have always pondered about the rapid gentrification throughout New York City over the past decade. This city, founded on the values of an immigrant working-class, has evolved into a gilded butterfly, whose wings cast shadow on the lower-class of New York’s sprawl. Through the reign of the Guiliani and Bloomberg eras, Wall Street benefitted greatly whereas the lower class was gradually depraved of social welfare. As mentioned in the article The Zeitgeist Tracked Down Bill de Blasio written by Bob Master, the plethora of events occurring in the late 2000’s through the early 2010’s has birthed the public desire for change. I never followed politics that much, but the assigned readings allowed me to understand how important these times are. There is so much riding on de Blasio for reshaping New York City into a more equal city. This city’s greatness should be reflected by all its classes. The working-class is the backbone of New York, thus should be treated as valuable assests to the function of the city. Even though the one percent maintains power within the city, it baffles me that they cannot realize the necessities of the remaining 99 percent. I can only hope that de Blasio is able to be that mayor who instills change within the fabric of the city.

Considering all of this, I can reflect on my personal upbringing. Both of my parents have been strong supporters of both Guiliani and Bloomberg, yet I only understood all of the “positive” things they have done for New York City. Yes, both of their reigns converted New York City into the glittering tourist attraction it is today, yet in doing so they reduced social welfare and taxes on the wealthy all for what was believed to be a socially beneficial economic and governmental system. My parents are considered middle-class, they appreciate the city’s transformation from grunge to glits as they witnessed it for themselves. They are supporters of stop-and-frisk, granted neither of them have been stopped-and-frisked. I cannot blame them for wanted to be protected and to live in such a beautiful city. Yet they don’t like discusses the misfortunes of the lower-class, and I can tell they don’t believe that increasing their social welfare and providing easier access to higher education will help the lower class dramatically. Which causes me to ask, Why is there such a stark difference of opinions on how to aid the lower class from a middle-class perspective?