All posts by Omar Nagaria

Reading Response #5

The Politics of Place, Oppression, and Privilege

Especially in New York City, the concept of place cannot be defined through a single narrative. As Hayden discusses in the chapter “Claiming Urban Landscapes as Public History”, analyzing and commentating on the history of public space requires the incorporation of various sociological elements such as gender, race, and ethnicity. Moreover, the chapter focuses heavily on “ the power of place” and how urban memories (streets, buildings, gatherings etc.) are entities that cannot go unnoticed by any effort to preserve a community. Additionally, Hayden mentions that the manipulation of space has been a powerful tool not only for altering economic conditions in some areas, such increasing jobs or enhancing transportation, but also for constraining certain social groups. As Hayden explains, “One of the consistent ways to limit the economic and political rights of groups has been to constrain social reproduction by limiting access to space” (Hayden, 1995). In other words, policies like zoning have significant implications in the realms of politics and economics. Alongside the constraints, the chapter also cites many sources that note that the existence of capitalism in American society and the altered landscape, mentalities and production practices have essentially separated people from their spatial history. Hence, Hayden concludes the chapter by advising preservationists who seek to revive deteriorating communities to critically analyze the idea of place through the lens of sociological memories and experiences rather than ordinary aesthetics.

“The power of place” is resonated in the “Privileged Places” chapter by Squires and Kubrin by stating that the notion of privilege is bound to have a spatial component. Moreover the chapter mentions that the opportunities one has in a metropolitan setting is undoubtedly underscored by his/her “place and race”, which in turn is dictated by public policy and zoning constraints (Kubrin and Squires, 2012). One of the main ideas presented in the chapter, and also something I can relate to, is suburban sprawl. Apart from the fact that my neighborhood (in Long Island) is predominantly white, I can agree that it has access to “products and services associated with the good life . . .health, education, employment” (Kubrin and Squires, 2012). Additionally, my commute to school makes me realize that as you get closer to the city, the more racially and ethnically diverse the stops on the LIRR become even though they are middle-class neighborhoods. Hence, it is no surprise when the chapter mentions that the residential choices many families make are ultimately involuntary and segregated in nature due to calculating public policies that limit opportunities for people of color. Employment is just one example. Furthermore, I found the ending of the chapter to be quite appealing, especially for our project on affordable housing. The mentioned “alliances” between affordable housing and school-choice groups or between governments and “transit-oriented” developers in low-income communities offer plausible solutions the cyclic dilemma plaguing the city.

Discussion Question:  Would the “uncommon alliances” mentioned in the chapter be readily endorsed by mayor De Blasio and his administration?

References

  • Hayden, D. (1995) “Claiming Urban Landscapes as Public History” and “Urban Landscape History: The Sense of Place and the Politics of Space,” from The Power of Place, p. 1-43.
  • Squires, G. and Kubrin, C. (2012). “Privileged Places” from The Community Development Reader, p. 347-352.

Reading Response #4

The Capital of Capital, Part 2

It was interesting to see the continuity between chapter 6 of Larson’s book and Stein’s article “De Blasio’s Doomed Housing Plan”. The chapter essentially outlined how the former mayor Bloomberg approached the topic of urban development that stemmed from the RPA’s Third Regional Plan advocating  investment in “Economy, Equity and Environment” and the city’s role as a global capital (Larson, 2013)  As reiterated many times in the chapter, Bloomberg’s urban renewal agenda featured a blend of modernist concepts advocating rapid and aggressive urban growth complemented by “incentives, tax subsidies and blurring of public and private monies. . .” and traditional ideas that championed healthy, multifaceted neighborhoods and voiced Jane Jacob’s call for diversifying and enhancing the use of “underutilized” land for the working-class  (Larson 2013). The chapter further explains how zoning was the impetus of urban development during the early 2000s, which not only attracted prospective private investors but also had elements from both ends of the urban planning spectrum. In other words, zoning during the Bloomberg administration was both large-scaled and diversified. It was interesting to note the political influence that zoning had in the city, where most of the downzoning  was taking place in primarily white regions that voted heavily for Bloomberg  and weren’t fond of high-density apartments. Also, i didn’t realize that one of the examples of diversified zoning in the chapter (Jamaica, Queens and the Airtrain) is actually where my father’s business is located. Whenever i work there, it is interesting to see how the local residents react when they find out that the tourist-oriented Airtrain costs $5 (via Metrocard) to go to JFK even though the subway and buses below are half the price.

The last part of the chapter is basically a juxtaposition of Stein’s article relating to inclusionary zoning. Even though inclusionary zoning was a part of Bloomberg’s agenda, with expectations of producing roughly 40,000 affordable housing units and financing another 82,000, it was merely voluntary and provided density bonuses for developers who accommodated some affordable housing. Moreover, Larson mentions that this method rendered it vulnerable to any economic recessions that largely dictated the investment of both the city and private developers. Ultimately the voluntary zoning accounted” for just 1.7% of housing growth between 2005 and 2015″ (Stein,2014) . It is no wonder that the “need to force developers to build less expensively” proposed in Larson’s chapter is what De Blasio currently has in mind (Larson, 2013). Yet as the title of Stein’s article suggests, the mayor’s double -down tactics have some inevitable shortcomings . Central to the argument (and something vital to our project) is that even though apartments built by private investors may ultimately accommodate affordable housing units, its application will not only cause rent to rise in the surrounding area due to the influx of wealthier families, but also compel landlords of many existing affordable housing units to sell their properties to such developers. Through the perspective of our project, the article also mentions some realities of the affordable housing dilemma. Simply put, the concept  is a contradiction and that “There are ways to do it well, but they are not profitable.” (Stein, 2014); revealing how the topic is more complicated than it seems.

Discussion Question: Even though the method didn’t work in San Francisco, could the application of inclusionary zoning over the entire city work in NYC?

References

Larson, S. (2013). Building like Moses with Jacobs in Mind, ( 5 and Ch. 6)

Stein, S. (2014) DeBlasio’s Doomed Housing Plan, in

Reading Response #3

A Time of Crisis

From both the “Origins of Public Health Collapse in New York City” by Rodrick Wallace and the chapter in Angotti’s book, it is clear that many changes and events that materialized in New York City in the 1960s and 70s were interwoven. The research by Rodrick Wallace is essentially a commentary on what were the major consequences of the city’s cutbacks on vital services in the early 1970s, and how the subsequent abandonment of services like fire extinguishment (50 units between 1972 and 1976 to be exact) relentlessly afflicted the poorest neighborhoods in the region; namely South Bronx, East Harlem, East New York, Brownsville and Bedford-Stuyvesant. The so-called “burnout” of such communities didn’t only cause the forced migration of helpless families to other regions of the city, like West Bronx and central Brooklyn, but also the accompanying stress and frustration paved the way for numerous health problems such as tuberculosis, STDs like gonorrhea and syphilis, drug abuse and numerous mental illnesses. The “. . . destruction of housing and community”, as mentioned by Rodrick Wallace, was again elaborated by Angotti who focused more on the political landscape in America during that time. Moreover, many topics addressed in Wallace’s research made more sense through the lens of Angotti’s book. For example, the 20 firefighting companies that were opened by the city in impoverished neighborhoods where fires were rampant (Wallace) materialized as a result of the “War on Poverty” initiative propelled by president Lyndon Johnson in 1968 (Angotti). It also was no surprise that such positive initiatives were quickly abandoned with the election of Richard Nixon, the longevity of the costly Vietnam War and the principle of austerity adopted by subsequent presidents. The chapter in Angotti’s book also described a key topic of what happened to those who resisted eviction from abandoned communities like South Bronx. Not only did tenants begin forming organizations like UHAB and Union of City Tenants essentially to fight off the city’s policy of privatization, but also were the pioneers of community development corporations (CDCs) which successfully pressured the city to invest in the rehabilitation and management of “some 80,000 units of housing” in the poorest areas of the city (Angotti, 2008).

A concept vivid in both readings is that effects of urban decay were far more complicated and emotional than the mere relocation of families. The stress and depression that was inevitable from losing a home, along with overcrowding and being emotionally ostracized from the new neighborhood, rendered individuals anything but immune to diseases like tuberculosis. And the fact that most of these relocating families were African American didn’t help their situation at all considering the civil rights movement was just beginning. This reminded me of the article in New York Times about the talented girl named Dasani who also relocated to a new neighborhood and faced numerous difficulties adjusting to her new school and unwelcoming peers. Furthermore, since my group project is on homelessness and housing, both readings offer solutions to neighborhoods that are at risk of decaying. As Wallace describes for instance, “. . .adequate municipal services, particularly fire extinguishment, can act as a kind of immunization against some mechanisms of contagious urban decay, and, conversely, that service cut can synergistically accelerate the phenomenon.” (Wallace, 1990).

References

Wallace, R. and Walace D. (1990) “Origins of Public Health Collapse in New York City: The dynamics of Planned Shrinkage, Contagious Urban Decay, and Social Disintegration”.

Angotti, T. (2008) “From Dislocation to Resistance: The Roots of Community Planning” from New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, p 94-109.

 

Reading Response #2

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

From the readings, it is clear that idealism and the manipulative dogmas of political and economic leaders prevail over reality and genuine necessity when it comes to city planning and rehabilitation. As Jane Jacobs notes countless number of times in her critique, city planners are indifferent to the “hows” and “whys” of urban success and fail to recognize the harsh consequences of their endeavors. And in the case of New York City, the problem is more pronounced. Jacobs uses East Harlem as a prime example, where projects that vaguely reflect “redevelopment” and “New York’s position as a global capital” are rather deleterious and problematic for the lower class. As one resident in her critique says, “Nobody cared what we wanted when they built this place [the rectangular lawn in the projects]. They threw our houses down and pushed us here and pushed our friends somewhere else. . . Nobody cared what we need.” On the other hand, communities in New York and elsewhere that have low mortality rates, clean streets, vibrant small-businesses and tightly-knit societies are viewed by city planners as “failures”.  These texts therefore stress how necessary a (revised) realistic approach to city planning is in order to resolve the numerous problems in the city today. And considering how enormous the problem of homelessness in New York City has become, city planners and previous political leaders have concerted their efforts through the narrow lens of the elite class, with little heed to genuine problems plaguing the city at large. Putting the previous readings into context, diversity, both at the social and economic level, is key for a prosperous city.

Discussion Question: Hypothetically, how would the city handle the problems caused by “bulldozing” towns down and rebuilding them from scratch?

Reading Response #1

What's Taking Shape?

A central theme that is found in the readings is the apparent inequality in one of the most economically powerful cities in the United States. As one article states,  the advent of such conditions were paved by the financial ideologies of the 1970s and 80s that promoted austerity, privatization, industrial deregulation and significant tax cuts for the wealthy. From one perspective however, the urban neoliberalism that dominated New York City economics in the late 1900s brought the city to a position that it couldn’t have reached if it followed traditional routes. New York City essentially became a magnet for people of all ethnicities and backgrounds, and symbolized the ideal welfare state. That same “perspective” would also applaud that family incomes of New York City’s wealthiest neighborhoods increased 55% from 2000-2010. Yet from a more common perspective, New York City for the past 30 years has cultivated clear-cut contrasts between the rich and the working-class. A striking statistic I found in the article “Welcome to the Gilded City of New York” was that the top 1% of wage earners in the city took in 38.6% of the city’s total income in 2012; a percentage which was even greater than the entire country’s! In other words, even though the opulent (especially at Wall Street) have undoubtedly prospered as a result of economic deregulation and the benign relationship between the city’s financial sector and political parties, a considerable amount of the city’s population is essentially stagnant, stuck with earning minimum wage, experiencing many social service cutbacks, and constantly facing fear of poverty. Furthermore, another central topic discussed in the readings was the future of New York City and what  economic and social changes are on the horizon. Mayor DeBlasio, during his campaign, has formed many alliances with organizations that essentially seek to alter the huge gap that is there between the affluent and the working-class, and his agenda will be faced with much contempt from the wealthies.  In my opinion, even if Mayor DeBlasio’s bottom-up approach in areas like public education and unionization isn’t a complete success, his efforts and time in office will certainly illustrate that New York City is a dynamic city that is constantly changing and isn’t a place reserved only for the affluent.

Discussion Question: What will be a harder task for Mayor DeBlasio, mitigating the gap between the rich and middle-class or making sure he doesn’t alienate his wealthy supporters and acquaintances?