All posts by Gisella Dionio

An Excercise in Perspective

The Capital of Capital, Part 2

What I found most striking about the Stein article on Mayor De Blasio’s inclusionary zoning plan was its impact and the deftness at which it achieves that impact. Specifically, Stein leaves his readers with feelings similar to the urgency and disillusion experienced by those actually affected by the plan.

Not knowing the context of the word ‘doomed’ in the title (as I didn’t know the specifics of inclusionary zoning either), I began reading with an open mind. The opening caption, “By embracing inclusionary zoning, Mayor de Blasio gets to put forth a big, bold plan for reducing inequalities without challenging capitalists,” immediately painted a picture of ambitious good intent. The phrases ‘reducing inequalities’ and ‘without challenging capitalists’ seen back-to-back like that set up my expectations for the proceeding explanation; I wanted to know–how could this be done? Stein fulfills these expectations and answers with a hopeful summary of De Blasio’s affordable housing plan before delineating inclusionary zoning, as well as the problem of affordable housing in New York City itself. During this time, Stein first presents inclusionary zoning as a promising prospect. He does not directly point out its deep flaws or hypocritical outcomes, but instead proceeds with an evenhanded account of ‘common and accepted criticisms’, leaving room to disprove these criticisms later on. Through the author’s tone and train of thought, readers unfamiliar with the topic are made to feel as outsiders peering in on an ambivalent matter. We know by this point that on the surface, the prospect is tempting, yet we also know that it is not all that it seems. I imagine that for people naive to the disservices of zoning plans, especially those who newly seek affordable housing, De Blasio’s plan would be difficult to distinguish as threatening.

However, in the following section, Stein pulls the rug out from under us. He dismantles the now ‘fatally flawed program’ ruthlessly and forces the reader to consider the viewpoints of those targeted by inclusionary zoning, through illustrating the toxic ripple effect that it would provoke. We learn that, not only are the promises of affordability and expansion both illusions, the plan proposed by De Blasio to double down on rather than rethink inclusionary zoning would likely result in decreased affordability and fewer affordable housing. Gentrification would spread like wildfire throughout affected neighborhoods, and displacement would follow. Here, I no longer felt like an outsider to a detached issue but a helpless witness to an obvious crime. I thought of the people who were to suffer and struggle to find a home on behalf of the seemingly benign proposal, and then I thought about those who would be unaffected: ignorant of their exemption and complacent in their ignorance. I wished that I, and others like me, would be further educated on the topic and that all those seeking affordable housing would definitely be made aware of De Blasio’s false claims. I couldn’t help but think that the paralyzing disenchantment which the article gradually builds on its readers was purposely strategized by Stein in order to evoke the feeling of being victim to such a proposal. And because of this, I found the Stein article to be singularly effective.

Project Update

The Future of Major Private Development

With our white paper complete, we have been able to employ our research more fully into the pop ed products, and have a more finalized sense of what these pop ed products will be. As Mike communicated in the last project update, the East River Plaza Residential Development would be cause for an influx of new, high-income residents who will decrease the affordability of the rest of the neighborhood and increase displacement of current residents. Thus, targeting the current low-income demographic most detrimentally affected by gentrification would be one of the main goals of our pop ed products. The other goal would be to raise awareness on the development’s flaws as clearly and as accurately as possible, since some of the target demographic might not have access to quality education. At the same time, the product would have to have a lasting impact on its audience, containing a universal emotional appeal likely to incite action. This action would have to be something readily available to the audience–an accessible yet effective solution to the issues presented.

Because of these considerations, our ideas for the pop ed products have shifted over time. Initially, we had been planning on gathering information to display on posters we’d put up in East Harlem, as a sort of exposé on gentrification to the general public. As this idea was taking place, Abhishek and Amanda met to compile maps and statistics on inclusionary zoning; other specifics such as the boundaries of where AMI was taken from were researched. However, when our group attended the Interference Archive field trip, we came across a postcard addressed to Mayor De Blasio, where volunteers could submit their contact information and urge him to pass and fund a proposal which provides the right to counsel in eviction proceedings.

11216163_10205531810966779_1229609277_n

This postcard proved to be a valuable inspiration to us. Our goals for the pop ed product would be achieved, as distributing postcards would reach our target audience better than posters, which many could walk past and ignore. We could maintain the information already collected for the poster and simply condense it into a convenient, portable form. In contrast with the postcard we found, our product would be more visually aesthetic and contain short stats and evidence arranged throughout the card (rather than a continuous letter) along with maps and a visual representation of the East River Plaza development. There would be a different graphic on the back as well. Through this product, we would be able to convince East Harlem’s residences quickly and effectively, as we had imagined. The images and directness of the text would convey the emotional appeal while the postcard aspect would provide a ready and accessible solution.

It was also at the Interference Archive that we attempted to find past evidence on Brooklyn’s Barclays Center, which we realized would contribute greatly to the overall persuasion of the card’s message. With no info found, we resolved to conduct our own research on the Barclays Center. Meeting to discuss the revised pop ed product, Amanda, Abhishek, Andrew, Ashwini and I went over the changes, added Barclays stats to the card, and were updated on the documentary Andrew was producing. The footage was shared via Facebook messaging–still our primary means of communicating–and the entire group was able to view the interviews of Roberto Anazagasti and Anne Kadamani. We hope to use the video as a detailed explanation of the aspects of the East River Plaza development that will not be explored as fully in the postcard. The video will be unique in that a subjective or more personal account of the development would be told, complementing the objective stats of our card by presenting them through a human perspective.

The Problem of Population Density in Urban Decay

A Time of Crisis

The “Origins of Public Health Collapse in New York City” article outlined the recent history and causes of disintegration and dispersal among overpopulated urban communities. Notably in areas such as the South Bronx, Central Harlem, and Inwood, the late 70s into the 1980s experienced abandonment of housing in minority-concentrated areas as well as the transfer of populations into other parts of the city. Interesting to observe is the relationship between these movements and the fire departments efforts to control fire incidents in the communities. In what Wallace terms the “abandonment epidemic”, fires were more likely to start in overcrowded units, where there is generally more concentrated human activity (i.e. more cooking going on, electricity being used, etc.). Coupled with the cutting of fire services to these areas of urgency, it seems almost inevitable that the 70s and 80s were marked by the reorganization of dense urban populations. And while the government was clearly aware of the issue and attempted at addressing it long before–in the opening of 20 new fire companies in 1969–later actions proved to not only counter but supplant any positive efforts made.

The solution implied here is that in densely populated urban communities, services made towards the safety and living conditions of residents should not be taken for granted. Rather, in order to prevent the disintegration of these communities and its subsequent social effects, services should be increased as needed. To accommodate for the number of fire incidents that take place in any given neighborhood, the effectiveness and quantity of fire services must be raised accordingly. In my opinion, this is the most direct way of deterring problems similar to the South Bronx example. However, it is only one. I believe that combatting urban decay in areas desperate on services for their survival should rely on multiple solutions. Without alternatives, the community may not pull through due to drawbacks on budgeting or other financial complications.

Therefore, another solution is to address the root of the fire incidents so as to lessen the likelihood of fire incidents occurring in the first place: overpopulation. I am not suggesting that the residents be moved elsewhere but rather that the residences themselves be altered in order to let each person or family occupy more space in the same location. Instead of multiple families living in crammed apartments where electrical usage runs high on each floor, each family would have ample amount of space in the buildings, spreading the activity of fire hazards and lessening the chance of fires. To maintain the neighborhood’s boundaries and overall mapping of the city’s demographics, the expansion of space would not be horizontal but vertical; in other words, taller buildings with wider apartments. Because I am not an architect or civil engineer, this idea is purely speculation. I wonder if designing such a residence would minimize population density (as I want to believe it would) or if it wouldn’t change the density/issue of overpopulation at all or, moreover, if it would change the understanding of population density itself (since the assumption that many people concentrated in one area live in close quarters would not hold true in this situation).