Tag Archives: macaulay

Reading Response

The Right to the/Just City, , , , , , , , , , ,

This week’s readings were David Harvey’s chapter, “The Right to the City”, and Susan Fainstein’s “Justice and Urban Transformation: Planning in Context”. Both of these articles elaborated the classes running theme of displacement of low-income families for urbanization of cities.

“The Right to the City,” an excerpt from Rebel Cities showed in depth analysis of the history and urbanization. Harvey, started the analysis with Haussmann’s plan to urbanize Paris in 1848, continued on to discuss the “mortgage and housing asset value crisis of 2008” and current urbanization in Brooklyn and in Harlem. The premise of the chapter focused on the capitalist societies’ need to produce “surplus product” in-order to continue to exist. The Housing market has done an excellent job of providing such a surplus. Providing a need for labor and the expansion of cities to accommodate the changing times. The ethical issue, that seems to be ignored throughout history, is “what is this urbanization costing?”. After reading this article, seems that whenever a city goes into financial instability and the unemployment rates rise, the government’s answer to the issue is “let’s build”. It is not surprising that history repeats itself and capitalist societies have to resort to amending past policies to supply the “surplus product” that is needed for the capitalism to function. However, the areas that are redone are inhabited by members of the community who are of low-income.  This urbanization is meant to increase the appeal of the city but it also seems to increase how drastically different the incomes and qualities of life are between the wealthy and middle-class, or even more dramatically the poor, of the city. Susan Fainstein’s chapter points out that urbanization is damaging to low-income and minority groups because it does not take the urban space that it affects into context.

“Justice and Urban Transformation: Planning in Context” focused on the belief of Karl Mannheim, which sought to give the power of urbanization to the members of the community through the efforts of elected officials. Mannheim’s theory stems from the idea of attempting to eliminate class bias. “Comprehensiveness,” which is Mannheim’s policy for planning, theorizes that values can be organized based on importance, and thus planning would proceed based on those values. The issues with the policy are rooted in the fact that values are hard to quantify and not everyone values things the same. As the chapter states, “values of democracy, diversity, and equity may pull in different ways”.  This belief is based on the idea that elected officials have a better understanding of what neighborhoods need when compared to organizations and the wealthy, like Yale University and others discussed in “The Right to the City” who currently hold an overwhelming amount of influence in planning.  When you are dealing with people and issues that affect “collective human rights” (Harvey 2013)  such as property, each individual situation contains aspects that require amending, adapting, and evolving policies so they are beneficial to that area. A policy that worked in South Jamaica in the past may not work in present day East Harlem; unless one is familiar with the needs and individuals of the area, one would not know how to adjust a policy to an area. If done correctly, where the needs of the community are the driving force (not capital and profit), this is a system which may work.

Discussion Question:  We live on a country that makes decisions through precedence and tradition; government is constantly looking to the past in-order make policies to improve the future. However, the negative aspects of the past, such as the displacement of communities, are often ignored if the policy showed promise, hence why there is a constant cycle of urbanization and resistance. Will New York ever see a policy that has not already been established in-order to benefit both the needs of a community and the needs of capitalism? Can an adapted version of “comprehensiveness” be the answer?

 

Reading Response

The Politics of Place, Oppression, and Privilege, , , ,

Discussion: Does the lack of representation of minorities directly contribute to the continued issues seen in this city? Minorities which includes women, Hispanics, and Africa-Americans. Without a sufficient number of structures in neighborhoods, can people of these groups ever really feel a sense of belonging? Does powerlessness stem from, said felling of not belonging?

This week’s readings focused on oppression and the uneven distribution of justice, public spending, and other municipal responsibilities. Once again, the theme of government planners ignoring the inhabitants of low-income, or poverty stricken neighborhoods, was brought up.

The chapter, written by Hayden, D., “Claiming Urban Landscape as Public History” mentioned that initially the spending of tax dollars on non-public spaces, spaces that were “not for you”, was not an issue of race, but an issue of class. However, as a result there was an almost nonexistent representation of African American’s, Hispanic, Immigrants, and woman. This concept is further elaborated in the Chapter “Privileged Places” from The Community Development Reader, in which the author stated “Place and race continue to be a defining characteristic of the opportunity structure of the metropolitan area.” These two chapters caused a domino effect of thoughts to occur. Throughout, these two chapters this idea of “belonging” really resonated. There are groups of people whom are ignored when the plans of the city and the future of New York are being discussed; this is a topic already addressed in previous readings. However, if you do not see these groups as belonging to this city, if there is no historical reminder, or proof, of their previous existence and contribution to this city, then their involvement in the future has a diminished significance. Moreover, a person who feels out of place in a city can feel “powerless”, which is one of the five faces of oppression mentioned in Iris Marion Young’s chapter in The Community Development Reader, “Five Faces of Oppression”.

Scholastically, the history of minorities and their contribution to society is known, but there is a difference in being educated about a subject and being able to see a memorial and connecting it to a direct and necessary contribution of group of people. People need to feel connected and comfortable in their neighborhoods. Part of that connection stems from the municipal government showing a concern for the needs of the inhabitants of an area. Instead of cultural imperialism, another one of the “five faces of oppression”, the government policies should be focused on the needs of the area. One of the best things about New York City is its cultural diversity, and yet members of minorities, whom stimulate said diversity, often are viewed as an issue to be fixed. The class divide within the city, feeds societies view certain races in a certain light. The intention of preserving certain aspects of a society, while ignoring another, may not be malicious, but the repercussions of this way of thinking further divides classes within or city. Something as simple as Urban Landscape can

Community Reading Response

Community, Part 1: Development and Control, , , ,

As was stated in the first chapter of “The Community Developer Reader,” the focus of this week’s readings was “devoted to an overview of the history and challenges of community development efforts.” This reading brought new insight into the process of community development.

The first chapter mentioned an idea that I was never aware of. According to the chapter, Communities were theorized to not exist in urban areas. Whether or not socialist approved of, or criticized, the elimination of communities, it seemed to be universally agreed upon that communities would cease to exist. It is easy to find this to be a ridiculous assumption in retrospect, but the knowledge of this theory does help to understand why government has come to so many challenges in dealing with community development. One would not consider the influence of something that is not supposed to be there. Community is needed. People innately group together and like to feel a sense of belonging. Community gives people that sense of belonging. By not considering these communities, it is crippling to the members of that community and has adverse long-term impacts. Additionally, the three chapters put into words something that seemed to be an on running issue with community development, especially in New York City. This issue is that there is no easy fix when thinking of community development.

The government has a long history of implementing temporary remedies for the issues faced in low-income communities. The second chapter talked about this a lot. These temporary “solutions” are a huge part of community development, or lack there of, issues New York City is experiencing today. Our group project involves working closely with the effects of private development in “under developed”, low-income neighborhoods. Right now, a huge wave of government contracts are ending with private developers. These contracts were put into place by former government administration to help low-income families be able to afford housing. As a result, families whom were previously living in rent regulated, affordable housing, or other housing programs are going to experience increases in rent that they cannot afford. After the contract between the companies that own buildings and the government is up, the companies have the ability to price however they feel fit and an increase in price equates to an increase in profit for the owner of the building. This profit cost families their quality of life. Because there is a lot of negative connotation with “public” facilities, there is a big push for private development; this heavy reliance on private development is a big issue. The government has to negotiate with private developers to achieve help for low-income families, negotiations that have expiration dates.

This “hands-off” policy that has been the trend of New York City government for the past administration is proving to be detrimental, as seen by growing number of homeless. Learning from the past doesn’t seem to be a political strong suit, but if the government becomes more involved true progress can be made. Like these chapters mentioned, just because it worked or didn’t work in the past, does not mean the same results will be achieved; however, a positive results are consistently seen when the concerns of activist, community boards, developers, and government are all incorporated. It is the duty of the municipal government to create and sustain unity in the city, this includes the impact of the decisions made toward community development.

Project Update

The Future of Major Private Development, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Our group contact is El Barrio Unite, an organized group of concerned citizens of East Harlem. Our Macaulay group has now met with El Barrio Unite members on two occasions. The initial meeting served as an introduction between our group and Roger Hernandez along with two of his associates from NERVE/El Barrio Unite. This meeting took place Monday March 2nd, 2015, Abhishek and Andrew attended this initial meeting as representatives of our group. During this meeting, the N.E.R.V.E. provided us with some literature on their current concern of the East River Plaza Development project. We also made a few suggestions on how we can help them, which included the suggestion that we help them with a brochure. The second event was the community board meeting held Monday March 9, 2015 at the Casa Boricua Del Barrio. The representatives of our group who attended this were Michael, Andrew, and myself (Jasmine). The purpose of this meeting was to update and inform the attendees, who amongst us were concerned residents of East Harlem, about the controversial East River Expansion Project.

To summarize the East River Expansion Project, three residential buildings are being proposed to be built on top of the already existing East River Plaza. The towers will be about 32-47 stories and include 1000-1200 residential units. Of those new residential units, about 20% are said to be affordable housing units. Issues including health, flood zoning, displacement, and decrease in sunlight are just a few of the concerning issues the group is asking the companies leading of this new development to be held accountable for. The company Tiago Holdings, LLC under the development groups Blumenfield Development Group and Forest City Rangers are the ones heading this project. Both development groups have a history of not fulfilling its promises of benefiting the neighborhood. The plan they have presented has inconsistencies on how many affordable housing unites they will be providing and there is no real statement on how this will benefit the people of the neighborhood. As of now, it would seem that the application is still being reviewed for completion. Due to a lack of transparency, it is clear that an aggressive approach to receive, both, information and all developments in of the stages of the project.

At the meeting, Michael made a very valid comment tat the building plans look extremely out of place amongst the surrounding neighborhood. A typical building in that area isn’t more than 7 stories. In this course, we have read enough literature to be well aware of the long-term detrimental effects of a plan such as this

The next steps for our group are to negotiate our next personal meeting with El Barrio. We are still in the beginning phases of this where we are trying to work out a day and time where a majority of the members are available to attend. Ideally, there will be several dates and times that we can come up with. Those dates and times will then be presented to Roger Hernandez to arrive at a mutually convenient scheduled date. We plan to schedule this sometime prior to Spring Break (April 3-12, 2015). Moreover, the group will try to attend some of the upcoming city planning commission meetings held on Wednesdays and Thursdays. At the coming city planning meetings, El Barrio plans to request an environment and a health impact assessment, which is supposed to be provided to the public anyway. In addition they will ask the companies to declare a community benefit agreement. By being present and consistent the needs of the community are heard. Also, the city planning commission will update the organization on what stage the plan is at. It is important that a open rejection of the plans with valid concerns that can be see and measured are expressed to elected officials. March 17th at 6:00 pm is the next full community board meeting, where El Barrio is scheduled to meet. Our group plans to be present at this meeting as a show of support for N.E.R.V.E/ El Barrio Unite.

El Barrio asked if our group could help with a letter to Melissa Mark-Viverito, the Council Speaker of District 8, and other elected officials. What is wanted is a pre-made letter that can be distributed, for members of the community and other concerned citizens to sign, in-order to show elected officials that this is not what the community needs nor will it benefit those who live there. El Barrio has a goal of at least thirty signatures, but it is the shared belief, of our group and the attendees of the March 9th meeting, that more than thirty letters can be mailed to City Council members. A suggestion of distributing the letters to our class and on City College campus caused others to suggest organizations like the teachers union, because there are 5 schools in the immediate area of the proposed construction site. Of course signatures have to be voluntary, but it is our belief that people would be willing to sign if they were aware. City Council members are the ones who have to sign off on the developers project, rezoning, and land use. Additionally, the letter requests that the plan not be approved until it is shown to more of a benefit to the community. Factors such as increase the amount of affordable housing to 40% and have it permanently contracted as affordable housing. Also, community preference should be given, so that local construction business can help with the building, which would result in jobs for community members, and residents obtain preference for selection once the units are ready to house.

As a group, we are communicating well. Our primary form of communication at this point is Facebook private messenger and has shown to be effective thus far. Everyone has been well informed of up coming events. The literature given to Abhishek and Andrew by N.E.R.V.E. has been emailed to all the members of the group who could not attend the initial meeting. We definitely have a solid starting ground and vision of where we are taking this project. N.E.R.V.E. is very excited to be working with us and using our group as an asset. The group is encouraged to follow and share El Barrio Unite on Twitter and Facebook as they have been and will continue to update the page with events and the stages of development. There is great promise for the impact our group can have and the power behind community organizing. I will be adding the link for their social media websites as well as their website for any of the other class mates who are interested in their work.

Facebook Page

Twitter Page

Official Website

 

Reading Response

The Capital of Capital, Part 2, ,

According to Scott Larson, New York is facing a great challenge. The State is unable support the increasing population. In his chapter, Larson discusses Bloomberg’s strategy to solving this issue, Urban Renewal. Samuel Stein’s article “De Blasio’s Doomed Housing Plan”, supports many of the points brought up in Larson’s Chapter and shows De Blasio’s approach to solving this issue.

Bloomberg administration agenda was to build big and fast. The chapter discusses how Bloomberg’s plan was essentially to provide incentives, such as tax breaks, to developers and was a voluntary option. He lean’s toward a Moses city plan instead of a Jacob’s city plan. The issue is that this is not benefiting the homeless and is not focusing on the people who already live in the City. His plan seems to be one that makes the city more commercialized. This pleases the rich and wealthy but does little to nothing for the poor, which is a constant problem. The needs of the low-income families are constantly ignores. This city seems to have a strong history of disguising projects that broaden the gap between the rich and the poor as something that would better the quality of life of low-income families.

De Blasio seems to have taken a stance that is a little too optimistic, his plan also seems to benefit the rich more than low-income families. The article criticizes the approach as a promoting gentrification more than it promotes affordable housing. De Blasio’s plan involves Developers buying properties below market price and incorporating it with luxury developments. This is meant to help encourage developers to keep rent low for certain communities. However, the issue comes with there is not enough incentive for developers to use their developments to help those people of lower incomes. The second issue is that majority of developers are using median income to determine the price of these new apartments, which does not properly reflect the income of the people in the neighborhood. The ultimate impact of this is that poor people are slowly kicked out of their neighborhood to allow room for a wealthier class of people; displacing families and possibly adding to the population of homeless people rather than helping.

In previous readings, we read about the constant displacement of poor, low-income families. This city has not fully healed from previous development plans, but is still making new wounds. The issue is that developers are more interested in turning a profit on their developments then helping those whom are not able to afford to live in an apartment. Plans that start off with good intentions, tend to drift to further widening the gap of the quality of life allowed to those of different classes.

Discussion Question: Can we force developers to provide affordable housing that is actual affordable to the people already in these low-income neighborhoods? What is a new system to determine a reasonable price for newly developed units in a low-income neighborhood?