It’s interesting coming back to these articles now. A lot of why I find these the most magnetic readings has to do with contemporaneity; these are recent articles about recent events, so they feel more immediate.

The first two articles read about the same as the first time around, with the points emphasized by what we’ve learned. Obviously and unfairly, the the poor bear the greatest burden in post-Sandy New York. They’re the least able to rebuild, the least able to find a new place to live when rebuilding isn’t possible. All of this is awful, none of this is surprising. Bloomberg was many different kinds of mayor, from environmentally conscious to dangerously pro-police.

But the de Blasio article reads so much differently this time around. The article paints him as New Yorkers saw him before he took office. In the article, he is a progressive crusader. He is the naturally occurring next step following Occupy Wall Street and other grassroots progressive campaigns. He is the staunch opponent of neoliberalism and a force fore the public good. In light of the other pieces we’ve read this semester, this is not exactly the case. His housing plan, while certainly a bit more progressive than Bloomberg’s, is a modest improvement rather than a radical progressive change. de Blasio, while likely better than some of the alternatives, isn’t turning out to be exactly as progressive as voters expected, or as he portrayed himself.

On a side note, I overlooked something interesting the first time around on that article. Right near the end, the author predicts a period of Democratic dominance in national politics. We already know that isn’t exactly the case, as we are now faced with two Republican controlled houses of Congress.

Income disparity and the idea of a vast gap between the upper and lower classes can be traced back to the very development of American cities. As stated in this article, cities originally developed as a machine for economic growth, especially after the industrial revolution. City production, however, was reliant on the capital of immigrant workers. As low income immigrant communities grew in large American cities, the American economy expanded through big businesses. Starting in the post war era, and the age of the automobile, the middle class was able to exit cities in favor of suburbs, with goals like home ownership.This was what truly revealed the style of two tier urbanism we see today.  North American cities, as particularly noticeable in New York City, are comprised of the country’s most poor and most rich. The very center of urban life is reliant on an enormous working class, yet increased cost of living, as well as a income growth in only the 1% makes it near impossible for New York’s working class to maintain life in cities. Another issue is the idea of how we account for a changing middle class. Though out of the picture while discussing two tier urbanism, New York’s middle class contributes to the idea of isolation from this 1%, yet today’s middle class cannot be compared to that during the growth of cities.

A rising generation of America’s middle class is turning away from this once attainable ideal of home ownership, which was common during the age of urban sprawl. Is urban sprawl still relevant  and viable for today’s middle class? How can we better suit the city to fit the needs of a modern working class? What are the politics shaping this?

Two-tier urbanism can be traced back two centuries ago.

As cities grew during the industrialization era, urban areas became more populated. However, with the use of steam powered trains and electric trolley, cities became more accessible from farther locations. Thus the suburbs were created for the middle class who could afford a more suitable living space. The lower class, on the other hand were stuck in the dangerously crowded cities. The influx of foreign immigrants brought about another divide within the cities between race and culture. Although New York became the most diverse city in the nation, it had divisions between neighborhoods with residents who were of the same class, culture, and race clustering together.

However, it seems that the federal government is the cause behind this two-tier system. The property owners wished to make their building space more profitable and so they created smaller and smaller living spaces for their tenants, creating a more congested city. Inadequate regulation of housing laws resulted in hazardous and unhealthy tenements. On the other hand, the Federal Housing Authority made low interest construction loans for veterans and other individuals who seemed capable of repaying their debt. The middle class was encouraged to move outside the cities and create safe and clean suburban neighborhoods. Consequently, this migration of the middle class meant the loss of the cities’ tax base so the government was incapable of providing much service to the large population of the working class.

Discussion Question: How do we appropriately destroy the division of the two-tier urbanism that became the foundation of New York?

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?

The first aspect of American cities mentioned in chapter three of “Cities and Urban Life” by Macionis and Parillo is that they were founded when medieval Europe was experiencing industrialization. I believe that industrialization has truly shaped cities in the United States from the very beginning, which shaped the capitalist economy that we have now. American urban dwellers often inhabit crowded, bustling cities because they seek better jobs or to further their education. Gaining higher education would enhance a person’s skills, which he or she would need in order to compete in today’s job market. Therefore, this sense of competition is definitely a factor that shapes the city and perhaps, even caused the gap between the rich and poor to expand. But where did this competing spirit come from? I think it rooted in industrialization when job specialization was taking place at a rapid rate, and people were paid different wages in relation to how skilled their occupations were. Most of the cities were first founded on the basis that they would allow for freedom of religion, but they were actually “unabashed trading centers bent on profit and growth” (Macionis and Parillo, 65). The text also pointed out New York City in particular, which was first named “New Amsterdam.” It was interesting that the population of this city was much smaller when it was first founded, which resulted in a more collective social life. I feel that this is a different picture of New York than the one we have today. In today’s world, the city is separated into communities based on ethnicity and people’s cultures. Those communities may be tight-knit, but the city as a whole is not collectivistic anymore. There might be too much diversity between New Yorkers to have a truly collective society in the city. I believe that this diversity also shapes the city because tensions often arise between white Americans and minority groups. Therefore, the way racism is addressed and how individuals have stereotypes about others based on where they come from is a huge factor that shapes the city’s social policies and laws. Although there is a fighting spirit in New York to change the attitudes people have about race, action must take place from a legal position as well. If protests and rallies for ending the “broken windows” policy and quality of life policing are ignored by the government, there will be more social unrest, which will shape the city.

Another interesting point brought up in the text was that in the 1950s, decentralization began, which means that people started to move away from cities. I feel that the migration of populations certainly shapes the city. For example, if a majority of the people who live in New York today decided to move to other states to live in suburban houses rather than in apartments, but continued to travel to the city for work, we would be living in a very different New York. This city is always alive and not as mechanistic as it may have been when industrialization was first taking place. During industrialization, there were many factories, but today, there are numerous tourist attractions as well as businesses and industries. Furthermore, housing shapes the city because it determines which people congregate in which neighborhoods and what is available to one community varies from the stores and goods that are available for another. Political and economic corruption shapes the city as well. The text brought up William “Boss” Tweed, who stole millions of dollars in 1870 and felt invincible afterwards. This type of corruption continues to exist today, but in a smaller scale. Therefore, it is important to consider how much the public is informed about politics and how aware people are of corruption because when the city loses money, it impacts the inhabitants of the city who have to work hard to make a living.

Discussion questions: How would present-day North American cities look different if they were founded many years before Europe began industrializing? Could the United States have become such a great force in the international arena without the development of cities? How may people’s awareness of corruption and knowledge of American politics shape the city?

The development of some of the first and largest North American cities was due to British colonization. They settled cities that were on the coast and near good resources because that was easiest for them. After the American Revolution, cities like New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Charleston became the center of the new American world. This was because they were the most developed once the British left, and they were in optimal locations to continue to expand. This is when the cycle of urbanization and suburbanization started. People flocked to cities because they believed there was better opportunity there. Then, once the cities became crowded and unsanitary, people left to suburban areas in order to escape the city life. They were still able to travel to the city for work due to advancements in technology. Cars, trains, and other modes of mass transportation were the main push behind suburbanization. Cities became crowded not only due to population growth, but due to immigration. Soon, the only option was to push Westward because the cities in the East became too crowded. Once the second wave of migration started, people in the cities became frustrated with the immigrants. They believed that the immigrants were stealing their jobs because they would work worse jobs for less money. This caused a panic and the government even went so far as to make laws regulating immigration to the United States. These exclusion laws in 1921 and 1924 were similar to immigration laws in other countries. One such country is Australia. After British colonization, the Australian government created a “White Australia” policy. This policy excluded non-white immigrants from entering the country. The main way of excluding immigrants, was through a diction test. The test came in many different languages and was given until the unwanted immigrant failed. The United States did not get this extreme in excluding immigrants, and eventually came to accept the roles immigrants played in developing the cities. Now, cities are a conglomerate of people from many different countries. This is crucial to the cultural development of this country, because this time period is the start of the United States we know today.

Discussion questions: What started the rumors of the American dream? How would American culture and development be effected without the influences from immigrants?

Today we discussed “What’s taking shape in NYC?” from the perspectives of the readings, video, and bits and pieces of our own experience. To sum up, we talked about how people are trying to change the way things have pretty much always been in NYC regarding the gap between the rich and poor/inequality- an issue that is not new, but has grown worse under Mayor Bloomberg’s private/corporate oriented agenda, and that Mayor DeBlasio has promised to address through a more public oriented approach.  Some specific issues on our radar include:

• Labor Policy/Rights i.e. raising minimum wage, unionization- i.e. giving workers an organized voice/representation in relationship to their bosses/the city

• Poverty Policy- i.e. Making affordable housing more accessible by addressing stigmatization, underfunding, and securitization

• Government Regulation/Taxes- i.e. on banks/Wall St. and the very wealthy

• Policing/Criminal Justice- i.e. Reassessing the “broken windows,” theory as practiced by the NYPD, which involves targeted, aggressive policing of low income and minority neighborhoods/communities.

• Sustainability/Environmental Justice- i.e. addressing the disproportionate vulnerability of certain communities to “natural” disasters and the inequality of resources available to those impacted by those disasters.

As we go through the semester, we’ll be digging more deeply into these issues, taking careful note of how they have been shaped by specific events, policies, and practices, at the scale of the city and through particular shaping efforts that are playing out in East Harlem.

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?

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?

Discussion Question: How do we make an economic transition from the trickle-down system implemented in our nation’s policies?

It is understood that a lot of the progress made in New York City has been short term fixes if any to the growing wealth gap of the citizens. I grew up in Jamaica Estates, Queens. It is a gated community with upper middle-class residents, along with its own funded security patrol. Donald Trump grew up in his childhood home in the very same neighborhood. However, when you walk out of the neighborhood you end up in Jamaica, Queens also known as one of the most dangerous areas in the borough. This is no surprise to a typical New Yorker. We have come to define the city with the characteristic of this “two-tier urbanism.” The real question is how do we make a change to a situation that has become commonplace?

It seems de Blasio’s main strategy is by intervening in unionization laws as well as reexamining the city’s 70 billion dollar budget and allocating funds to social services for the underprivileged. He also plans on raising taxes on the upper class to generate over 500 million dollars in revenue. With proper management of the money, there can be strides in resolving the issue as long as the residents bring the attention back where it is needed.