All posts by kamandeep17

Project Update #3:

The Future of Community Gardens

There are over 400 community gardens that exist in New York City today that have been a key aspect to many neighborhoods and communities, in terms of development and agriculture. Despite the critical role that community gardens play for the development of a community, many are termed as vacant lots and the recent concern of most gardeners today is land tenure. Many gardens continue to be threatened and replaced by other land uses such as housing usually through private development. The focus of our project is to bring about recognition of community gardens as a place that shapes the development of a community. We will be focusing on the political aspect and legality that surrounds community gardens to provide better understanding for the recognition of community gardens. In order to address these ideas, we are furthering our research that deals with the historical emergence of community gardens, the legality of the gardens, issue of affordable housing and the gardens under the Bill de Blasio’s housing plan, and to seek solutions that would bring awareness and recognition of community gardens.

 

The history of these gardens can be traced back to the fiscal crisis in the 1970s, in which many buildings were abandoned and there were many vacant lots due to urban neglect. During World War I, “the government promoted community gardens to supplement and expand the domestic food supply.” The federal government made further efforts of incorporating agricultural education and food production in the public school curriculum. However, during the Great Depression community gardens provided a means for a cheaper alternative food source for the unemployed. This eased the financial burdens that most were going through at the time and also provided healthy and nutritious food. During that time, millions of households participated in gardening programs and grew produce that had a total value of $36 billion. World War II had taken a toll on all the gardening programs at that time, and so community gardens decreased in number. However, the few gardening programs that were left were enough to spur a revival of community gardens by 1970. This revival was largely due to urban abandonment, rising inflation, environmental issues, and the social aspect of the need to build a sense of community. These gardens did indeed serve the purpose of food production, recreation, education, and aesthetics, but what was most important for the community at that time was to build social connections that was most easily facilitated through gardens.

 

In order to find ways in which community gardens can obtain legal recognition, the legality behind the issue of gardens should be addressed. Of the community gardens owned by the city, none are permanent or receive budgets to address infrastructure needs.  That is the reason people want community gardens to be mapped out and designated as parkland. If they were considered as parks, then it would take the state legislature to decide that the garden should be used for a different purpose.Community gardens are not always protected under the public trust doctrine- “the principle of common law that directs who owns and manages natural resources.” In order for them to be protected, the community garden must have been declared parkland by the government. If the community garden is on land protected by the Department of Parks and Recreation is more likely to be protected than a garden on any other public or private land. Due to the Public Trust Doctrine, state courts have repeatedly ruled that if a land has been dedicated as a park, or has been recognized as a public space it cannot be taken for non-park use without approval of the State Legislature. The Public Trust Doctrine has also been used by the state Court of Appeals, forcing the city to get approval from the New York State Legislature before tampering with the parkland.

 

Further research regarding different policies will be talked about in the white paper after talking to Ray and taking his suggestions into account about placing community as farms and the benefit and impact of urban agriculture and the legality behind this. We will, also, be using Ray’s outline on specific issues that serve to inform the project scope for the conflict between affordable housing and community gardens. He discusses two plans that address housing development and in relation to the Mayor’s plan for development of 200K units of affordable and low income housing. He discusses how we need to specifically identify the geographic distribution of vacant lots for the potential development of housing as well as vacant lots for the preservation and/or development of community gardens. He also proposes that there are demographic assumptions/population projections informing the income-related distribution of development of 200K housing units using standard AMI criteria.

 

Also, as Ray suggested, we will be focusing on the Melrose Commons neighborhood in South Bronx and observing the success that it has in creating harmony between public housing and community gardens. This would provide an example to understanding the tension between these conflicts. We are planning on visiting the neighborhood this Sunday with Ray or a representative as a guide. We plan on interviewing Ray and people from this neighborhood, asking their views about community gardens and the issues that surround it. We plan on asking specific questions, that will be laid out by the end of this week, for the interviews to make it more organized and efficient. We, also, plan on filming the interviews and the neighborhood for our video, which would provide a perspective of the locals on the community gardens issue. After recording the interviews, Oneeka, Kelly, and Sara will edit the video. Then, Lisa and Amanda will ask for the ITF Aaron’s help for designing and creating the website.

 

The next steps for our project include attending forums and Nos Quedamos as mentioned before. We will, also, be continuing our research and finishing it before the end of this month to incorporate it in our White Paper drafts. We will be incorporating the article written by Paula Segal from 596 Acres for NYCCLl, which discusses the three categories of public land in our white paper as well in discussing the issue of public land.

 

We work well together as a team. We incorporate each others suggestions and collectively approach any problems or questions that need to be addressed. We usually use Google Docs as a medium to discuss about any ideas, resources, and for meetups. Sometimes, this is not the most efficient way to discuss problems and project ideas and thus, more time needs to be allotted during class sessions because of the varying time schedules each member has. Overall, we work as an organized and efficient team.

Reading Response #5

The Politics of Place, Oppression, and Privilege

In the article, “Urban landscapes as public history,” Dolores Hayden proposes different perspectives on gender and race to broaden the practice of public history. Hayden outlines the elements of social history of urban space to connect people’s lives and livelihoods to the urban landscape as it changes over time. She then explains how communities and professionals can tap the power of historic urban landscapes to nurture public memory. She believes that teaching historians, artists, architects and planners to work together with the people and communities who occupy certain places is key to recover aspects of public memory, specifically those involving women and ethnic minorities. This provides a sense of shared authority among those that have political power to preserve urban landscapes. I agree with Hayden that the construction of community-based public history should be with the focus of the place/location. There needs to be emphasis on recognizing the place of African Americans, women, and immigrants in building and contributing to the city’s political and economic issues.

Location is key to determine not just the market value of a home, but also plays an important factor that determines the good life and many people’s access to it in the metropolitan. In short, place and neighborhood matters. Access to decent housing, safe neighborhoods, good schools, and other benefits is largely influenced by the community in which one resides in. Individual initiative, intelligence, and experience are obviously important, but understanding the opportunity structure in the United States today requires connecting it to individual characteristics and location. Kubrin and Squire in the article, “Privileged places” explain how race and location structure urban areas, communities, and policies. They believe that “privilege cannot be understood outside the context of place.” They believe a central feature of place that can change the opportunity structure of urban communities is the role of race. Racial composition of neighborhoods has long been at the center of public policy and private practice in the creation and destruction of communities and in determining access to the elements of the “good life.” I agree with the author’s viewpoints that place and race continue to be the defining characteristics of the opportunity structure in metropolitan areas. This eventually leads to people of the same race and of the same financial status to reside in similar neighborhoods, often leading to segregation. Many associate race, ethnicity, and economic background to where one lives, often this leads to rejection for a job or even loan for housing. Disentangling the impact of these two forces is difficult, but where one lives and one’s racial background are both social issues that significantly shape the privileges and opportunities that other people may enjoy. Both articles connect with our class discussion about the major problems such as social inequality and economic inequality and the roots of these problems in which each problem leads to the other.

Questions: How can we address this problem in which race and the location one resides in is not what shapes the different opportunities available? Is there a possible alternative approach in which people can have the same opportunities as other people regardless of the location they reside in?

 

Reading Response #4

Community, Part 2: Organizing and Planning

In the article “Community planning without displacement: strategies for progressive planning,” Tom Angotti focuses on the close relationships among community planning, political strategy and the control over land-use (public vs private) which could contribute to the prevention of gentrification. He begins by discussing the connection between security of tenure and housing which has been a goal for housing and community movements. The power is usually in the hands of outside forces rather than between or within neighborhoods and it is important for community organizers to take into context these struggles for social justice and to change these relations of political power to play an important role in shaping the city. Angotti states, “ under industrial capitalism, planning became an explicit function of the state, industrial capitalism- contradictions within the capitalist class and between capital and labor.” Urban planning has been a means to address this contradiction. This ties in with James DeFilippis reading for Monday which provided this overview on the contradiction between production and social reproduction. Another important “element of progressive planning” is land-use. Urban planners need to look into ways to develop and regulate land and look at the long-term issues of land use. New York City’s land use policy has been largely been controlled by the economic theory and the powerful real estate sector. As Angotti states, the goal of the community planner is to aid in producing good communities and not just contribute to or accommodate market demand for development. Thus, there needs to be a much more strategic approach to land which would include the development and controlling of land-use. This could provide a “sense of place” that could slow or prevent the gentrification process in neighborhoods that is caused by profitable giant development projects. There is a major set of contradictions between real estate and communities just as between capital and labor. Due to the power of the real estate sector, which is a major node for the transaction of global capitalism, it conflicts with community planning especially in New York City. The real estate industry also plays a vital role in the development of both market-rate and affordable housing. This topic is relatable to our project on community gardens in terms of the connections to land-use and political policies and how that plays a role in community planning. DeRienzo in the article, “Community Organizing for Power and Democracy,” discusses what makes a neighborhood and a community before delving into how community building efforts can be characterized today and a few examples on how to prevent gentrification such as the use of public space should be restored by any community effort. I found DeRienzo’s article very organized and direct in terms of defining or explaining in terms of community planning. This is similar to what Angotti discusses in his article as key for community planners to take into account to slow the process of gentrification. I suppose the question to ask would be, is it indeed possible to mediate between community planning and political power(land-use is just another aspect of political power)?

 

Reading Response #3

Roots of Community Planning

The article,“Root Shock: The Consequences of African American Dispossession” by Mindy Thompson Fullilove, discusses the short and long term consequences, especially the displacement of many African-American communities, lead by urban renewal projects during the 1950s. It is interesting how Fullilove highlights the growth of urban ghettos and describes the vital communities. Although African Americans were confined to ghetto areas due to segregation, most of these communities began to flourish in culture, recreation, and education (Harlem Renaissance). Residents considered their communities filled with vitality. However, the Urban Renewal Act of 1949 was a program that set the stage for deconstruction of ghetto communities. Its interesting how the progress/expansion for the country and its people, specifically rich, was at the expense of a specific group or poor community. Jacob’s “sparrow principle” describes this aptly in opposition to urban renewal approach. “We would not turn into predatory animals for purpose of some grand planning or somebody’s favor.” This inequality of class continues to reflect that we still have today. I found the statistics quite startling, the article states that in 1961, African Americans consisted of 10% of the US population, however, more than half of the residents lived in areas that were part of the urban renewal project. This process of urban renewal strengthened segregation and led to hardship for the families that were displaced due to no vacant housing. The ideals and foundation of the nation represent democracy, however, targeting a specific group or low class for displacement for the sheer purpose of progress is not upholding to these ideals of a democratic nation.

Urban renewal not only lead to to relocation of people, but also gave a disadvantage to them in terms of access to resources such as education. The opportunity of attending a college. This is illustrated in the example of the urban renewal process in Roanoke, Virginia in the article. Prior to urban renewal in that city, the community was a close, knit community and the residents were quite satisfied both financially and socially. However, false hopes and ideas about improved, renewed communities about the program led to a scattered community that was once a tight-knit community. There was strong community opposition to slow this urban renewal process, however, this could lead to stop the program. Mary Bishop, who documented the story of urban renewal in this city, reported that the people displaced incurred financial loss and some were in heavy debt due to additional payments they had to make after being displaced. Asides from financial costs, the tight-knit community was scattered; social and moral support was removed along with the urban renewal process. Social networks are key for the growth of communities and with urban renewal in this city those networks disrupted.

I really found interesting how throughout these urban renewal projects people are opposing and fighting for their rights. The story of David Jenkins visit to Elmwood illustrates this in the article. Delores Rubillo, his neighbor, refused to move from Elmwood during the urban renewal process, which griefs David for the fact that if he had showed that tenacity perhaps he would still be living in his neighborhood. This opposition could provide hope for the betterment of such communities and for many not to be displaced. Fullilove further discusses the long-term consequences and ethical issues that arise from the urban renewal process. After urban renewal,  African American communities became weaker and more affected by negative forces such as crime.

Discussion Questions: Is there a solution in which urban renewal is not done at the expense of a minority group or low class? Is it possible to manage the process of urban renewal/ progress under the ideals of a democratic nation?

Reading Response #2

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

The “Death and Life of Great American Cities” by Jane Jacobs centers around the problems of city planning and the strategies that planners followed throughout most of the twentieth century. The current expenditures based on these current strategies for rebuilding for the most part have been unsuccessful and have led to the decay of the cities.They have not accomplished anything in eliminating slums or stopping the decay of city neighborhoods. I agree with Jacobs in that I think that city planning should not just involve tearing down and simply rebuilding, the proper way is to analyze neighborhoods and see what is it that makes a city successful and what is it that makes it unsuccessful. Planners should encourage factors that promote success and discourage those that do not. If we continue with the current city planning of only looking into a quick, easy outer impression that cities give, there is probably little hope for such cities. However, sometimes planning based on theory might work for the expansion of a city as Robert Moses had planned out for an efficient city. The building of bridges and highways did make the city accessible to many, however, it led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of residents in New York City, destroying traditional neighborhoods by building expressways through them. So, what exactly is the point of building or expanding a city in a way that largely leaves the residents of the city dissatisfied and displaced.City planning should not just be based on sole theory it needs to account for what exactly people that inhabit them want.

 

Discussion Question: Why do we continue with such urban renewal policies if they largely lead to destroyed communities and isolated urban spaces? Are we looking for an efficient, isolated city that is based on theory or a vibrant urban city community that is based on the needs of most city-dwellers?

 

Reading Response #1

What's Taking Shape?

Change and industrialization has led to the development of many North American cities like Boston, New York, and Philadelphia and to the constant upgrading of cities today. At the beginning of it all, the United States could be seen as an urban nation, however, in the present that is what it has become. Trading centers and location have been a major role in contributing to the success and development of many cities. Soon this led to the arrival of immigrants from various nations leading to a melting pot or “crazy quilt” pattern that characterizes so many American cities such as New York City today. However, this soon led to deterioration in the quality of life with many people moving into the suburban areas. This has only been spawned by the advances in technology such as trains. This quick and cheap transportation not only opened gateways for the “suburban dream,” but also allowed to access to many other major cities. This,also, led to the widening gap between the rich and poor (analogous to previous readings). However, even today that gap is still not lessening. I really found the history of the development of New York City as the most interesting (mostly because I’ve lived here all my life). Asides being known as a financial hub, New York has been shaped by many immigrants that arrived here. The postindustrial economy is what is remaking New York, particularly with the age of new technology. While there has been an improvement in the quality of life in the city which includes construction projects in areas like the South Bronx, not all of the city’s residents are benefitting from the post industrial process. Furthermore, this leads to two unequal lifestyles in which one is a well-paid white collar professional and the other a low-paid worker.I find it intriguing how a city like New York adapts to its changing economic structure and the influx of population. The acceptance of people from different ethnicities has contributed in part of the success of the development of the city culturally and economically. There are in parts failures and successes that characterize the dynamic New York City we know of today and those of many other major cities as well.


Discussion Question: Would this growth of a postindustrial economy continue to lead this rebuilding process in American cities, such as New York City or a much more collective approach is needed to shape or lead to the continual development of American cities?