All posts by minhalmahmood

Project Update April 20- May 11

Updates - Envr Justice

Overview of Key Project Ideas/Activities:

It was all hands on deck this spring break as we tied loose ends together to finally complete our white paper. We had the outline prepared and several of the sections completed from earlier class assignments, it was just a matter of making the content flow and assembling the final product. Each group member worked on a section and added or removed content as needed to make the white paper concise and flawless. Additionally, several of us re-read the paper and fixed any errors.

Updates on Current Progress:

We completed the biggest portion of our project; now onto the easy stuff. Our group split into two smaller groups to complete our next two assignments. Brianna, Ashley, and Amir are working on the popular education piece, which is a video composed of clips taken from the tours in the South Bronx. In the video, we hope to portray a repeated image that represents the South Bronx Unite movement, whether it’s the image of Mychal Johnson or the word “Boycott” followed by the FreshDirect logo. This repeated imagery, like in the ACT UP movement, influences people to associate the image with the movement and its ideas. Our target audience for the video is the South Bronx community, especially those who do not know about the issue entirely. Eventually, this knowledge will spread from just this community to other communities and eventually the borough and city. The script for the video is written with each member recording a voice-over. We will mostly focus on the issues, data, and policy recommendations. Overall the video will be approximately 3 minutes long.

Nick, Fanny, and I completed the PowerPoint presentation last night. The information is second nature to us at this point; in fact, we even have some of the data values memorized. This would be especially helpful during our model city council presentation on Saturday. The PowerPoint was completed very quickly, and we tried to keep the slides themselves concise and added pictures to persuade our argument on each slide. Today we checked the slides for grammatical errors and fixed minor details. On Saturday, we hope to show the video after our presentation to strengthen our argument visually, especially with clips of heavy smoke evading from nuclear plants located next to a little league baseball field.

Challenges Encountered/Remaining Tasks/Group Dynamics:

Thankfully, we did not face any difficulties during the completion of all of these projects. The biggest challenge for our PowerPoint was picking a theme we all agreed on. Otherwise, everything is running efficiently and on time. We finished the White Paper and PowerPoint relatively early, and the video is near completion. During each Macaulay class, the entire group focuses on getting work done, which leaves minor tasks to complete at home. We assign jobs during class so each member knows what to do ahead of time. I think our group dynamic is great and I am glad we can all rely on each other to get the job done.

Side note:

After looking at the “ACT UP” discussion and reflection section, I realized South Bronx Unite is very similar to ACT UP and TAG. In my response, I said, “From ACT UP and TAG, we learn the valuable lesson that community change can occur even when there is little hope or motivation for these individuals. We see the strong influence of community planning and how it can be successful with the right strategies, determination, and dedication.” Now I realize how truthful this statement is. South Bronx Unite has the historical and community knowledge it needs to fight back, all it takes is a matter of constant persuasion to the city officials and fighting back for their health and land.

Silence=Death

Uncategorized

David France’s documentary “How to Survive a Plague” reveals the history and struggles of ACT UP and TAG at a time when homophobia and government indifference was common. The activist organizations were able to influence both the government and drug companies about the need for new treatments for AIDS, especially within gay communities. These organizations were able to transform AIDS from a death sentence to a manageable condition.

Like our previous discussions in class, we can see the power struggles within the government and the people, the influence of community resistance, and growth machines. ACT UP created opportunities for community change through protests and marches and demanded change from the FDA, NIH, and presidential candidates about the prevention of death for those infected with AIDS. The number of deaths rose from 43 cases in 1981 to more than 6 million 10 years later. They needed change, and they needed it now.

ACT UP members took matters into their own hands and spent time reading and learning more about AIDS- both the social and scientific issues. They educated members of the coalition by bringing in chemists and nurses and created their own glossary for AIDS terms. The activist group took the intellectual route in order to fight officials like Bush and Jesse Helms. In fact, not only did the AIDS coalition provide important information about the effects of AIDS, but also about the importance of condoms and the need for protected sex.

Through historical and community knowledge, as in our community projects, ACT UP was able to strategize their activist plans. They were able to sit in on FDA and NIH meetings and watched the scientists conduct experiments on protease inhibitors, which led to the development of AZT and DDI. However, the organization’s persistent measures to speed up the process to release drugs onto the market was a mistake, since proper research and experiments were not done on its initial release. The development of a new drug, one that actually worked, changed history. This is the moment where members of ACT UP and TAG were able to say, “Wow. We were the reason behind that.” Thanks to their rallies, protests, and constant criticism of the government and drug companies, ACT UP was able to change history and save more than 6 million people from the destruction of AIDS.

From ACT UP and TAG, we learn the valuable lesson that community change can occur even when there is little hope or motivation for these individuals. We see the strong influence of community planning and how it can be successful with the right strategies, determination, and dedication.

The Deception of Real Estate

The Capital of Capital

As a whole, Tom Angotti’s novel examines community planning responses to several injustices within communities, including urban renewal, large-scale planning, gentrification, and now, real estate. The issue of land ownership started in the 60s and 70s when vacant lots and abandoned buildings were handed to the highest bidders. This kinda makes sense, except for the fact that all this land would have provided a powerful foundation to build a better future, such as allowing communities to use their own ideas to plan and develop the land in their own neighborhood. Instead, the government’s distribution of land left neighborhoods at the mercy of real estate companies.

Neoliberalism, which calls for deregulation of the government, privatization, and market-driven development, has led to the replacement of a strong public sector by privatization. As a result, communities confront local governments that are “less aggressive in leading land development and more dependent on hegemonic real estate interests.” The policy of the government has facilitated the rise of the powerful real estate market that we’ve come to know today.

Not only does the market systematically segregate communities by wealth in its quest for additional profit, but also by race. “The sale and rental of property are color-coded,” meaning that certain races are encouraged not to buy property in certain neighborhoods. The city’s racial apartheid has led to racial steering, but also the benefit of blockbusting. It’s surprising how much of an impact the real estate company has on the economy of NYC. It has its downsides and its benefits, even unintentionally. But as a whole, real estate basically transformed the central NY district into a globalized cultural one, full of competition between real estate companies, elected officials, and community residents.

Even in its efforts to provide affordable housing for the low-income classes, the benefits of real estate outweigh the benefits to low-income tenants. Private developers that finance low-income housing have an incentive- tax deductions. It allows the private developers to accumulate money and initiate programs that depend on market-rate housing for low-income residents. These programs pave the way for gentrification and displacement due to the increase in construction that eventually drives up property values and rent. New buildings and property attracts people with more money in their pockets and eventually displaces the poor and affordable housing.

As Angotti suggests, we need the city to allow local neighborhoods to grow “independently” and “organically,” in a process not driven by real estate developers and without depending on financing from global investors. We need communities to take control of their own land because with real estate, “property is theft.”

Community Planning to Save the Day (or is there too much damage?)

The Roots of Community Planning

We all know New York City has its problems when it comes to property and urban planning, but the root of this problem stems from NYC’s addiction to real estate. New York’s history of city planning consists of deregulation and actually no planning, which gave rise to real estate in NYC. According to Angotti, “the federal urban-renewal program in the ’60s and ’70s left a lot of vacant lands, a lot of blight” because of the idea that neighborhoods were slums and that luxurious condos would turn the community around and improve our lives. But it didn’t.

The struggle of the community starts back to when slaves were in high demand in the U.S. The influx of immigrants and rich white folk led to the displacement of blacks, or “negro removal,” which demonstrated that urban renewal was not just about local neighborhood issues but was a central part of the national civil rights movement. Political movements and civil and labor rights rose around the 19th century and established strong bases in the city.

Local communities have united and attempted to solve problems themselves. Poor community members who took ownership over abandoned properties and put their love and labor into improving their communities, such as cultivating gardens, unintentionally created conditions for their own displacement. The revival of the community attracted wealthy residents who drove up housing values so much that the original tenants could not afford to remain in the revitalized community, simply because there were no laws or policies in place to protect them. This represents the tragedy of gentrification.

Angotti addresses progressive community planning as a response to community injustices such as gentrification, urban renewal, real estate speculation, large-scale planning while also situating these responses within wider political, economic, and social contexts. We need to fight social injustice while insulating ourselves from real estate market pressure. We need to understand community-based planning beyond the scope of immediate challenges, as in look at community planning across multiple scales and generations to understand the root of the problem.

Discussion question:  New York’s revenue relies heavily on real estate taxes, but from a local perspective real estate can induce greater division between the rich and the poor and the blacks and the whites. How can we combat the powerful force of real estate companies?

 

Street Fight: Moses and Jacobs Edition

“The Patron Saint” and the Git’r Done Man”

The battle for the streets of New York was an epic and historical moment that influenced the development and urban growth for the city we’ve grown to love today. On one side, we have “Bob the Builder,” otherwise known as Robert Moses, who used his political prowess to construct highways, bridges, and buildings. On the other side, we have Jane Jacobs, an eloquent writer who was seemingly Moses’ foil. She believed in the preservation of urban environments through four categories: “mixed land use, short blocks, buildings of various ages and conditions, and density of population” (Larson 1).

Although both ideologies seem contradictory, they’re both right about something: New York needed help in its urban planning.

Moses was about projects while Jacobs was about process. Moses sought to tear down buildings for the construction of new highways and road systems to ease the congestion within neighborhoods. Jacobs fought as an activist against Moses’ plans. Jacobs believed that cities do not only require landscape, institutions, shopping centers, playgrounds, churches, and hospitals to flourish, the “mush” concept that we’ve all come to accept. We need to know how the city works before we tackle the problem. She wanted to change the perception of how a city should flourish. Her experience in the North End taught her that the key to a flourishing city is its residents. Good cities encourage social interaction at the street level. Moses slashed through run-down areas and displaced the poor and the Blacks, which was his idea of slum clearance. Jacobs mistrusted the state and government, while Moses exploited his power by utilizing public funding to help the city survive suburbanization.

As Larson pointed out, the triumphant ideology is actually a fusion of both- “building like Moses with Jacobs in mind.” Although the two were very different, they both fetishized the concept of a built environment and believed that New York needed a new plan for its development. Current development focuses on diversity and a scale-appropriate design. Although developers have the right idea, they aren’t implementing it properly. Developers emphasize urbanization, quality public space, and walkability, but their development projects reinforce economic segregation, further widening the gap between the rich and the poor.

In the end, these two rivals have made their name known throughout New York history.

Without Moses’ daring pragmatism we wouldn’t have the playgrounds, parkways, bridges, and housing units we have today. However, he essentially created the start of the displacement of the poor, where tenements for low-income residents were besieged by the construction of middle-income apartments. Nonetheless, his accomplishments stood the test of time.

Without Jacobs’ appreciation for neighborhoods and design sense, we wouldn’t have the human-scale and livable communities we have today. She fought against the bulldozer and big development projects that would “revitalize” business districts and improve the quality of public spaces. Jane Jacobs was the center of the living city.

Discussion question: Jane Jacobs sought citizen involvement, but has this idea taken the wrong turn and created powerful residents of neighborhoods who reward the politician who strives to keep conditions exactly as they are?

Can you spare $2 million?

Situating New York City

New York is a difficult place to acclimate to, but once you’re here, you don’t want to leave. You want to live in this spectacular city. But chances are, you can’t afford to. The major problem with this city is its increasing rent and cost of living. Stores that were seemingly popular and busy, such as Toys ‘R’ Us in Times Square, are closing down due to the high cost of rent. High rent prices and apartments worth over a million dollars are forcing city dwellers outside the city to settle for the suburban environment. As the city places improvements in transportation, creates new cultural centers, and expands upwards, the cost of properties increases. For example, DeBlasio proposed a Brooklyn-Queens Streetcar to serve both the poor and wealthy as a means of transportation. It seems like a good idea until you realize how the city plans on paying for it: “It would increase the property values along its route, and the increase in property taxes over time would amount to $4 billion” (Jim Dwyer of NY Times). As if taxes aren’t high enough as they are. Yet we need these improvements for the betterment of our city. So, is there a middle ground?

It seems like the city is only affordable for the rich and wealthy. How would this impact low-income families in the future? We need our nitty-gritty workers- the workers who are willing to work in the low-paying jobs that provide the backbone for the city. But how do we prevent another Boss Tweed from taking advantage of the poor and making millions from corruptive practices?

Before the appearance of high-rise apartments and the rise of suburban life, New Yorkers lived in tenements. In the tenement museum, the living conditions were absolutely atrocious. With very small rooms, a large volume of people, and lack of clean water and electricity, one would wonder how these people were able to stand these conditions. We no longer face these sanitation issues, but we do face the problem of paying rent and saving enough money for groceries and personal needs. So, should we cramp ourselves into small apartments for the sake of saving money? It looks like it has to come down to that. Immigrants hoping for a new life and low-income residents face these issues. They settle for anything, which unfortunately impacts their living health conditions. In fact, micro-apartments have recently become popular. A room basically the size of a one-car garage costs $950 a month. Is it me or does that sound insane?

According to the Times, about 57% of apartments, co-ops, and condos are empty for 10 out of 12 months of the year. Some of these apartments are so insanely expensive, with an estimate cost of $500,000,000, that only a few billionaires can afford it. It is not the lack of apartments that is the problem here, but the prices. My question is, why construct these luxury condos if no one is going to live in them? Strip these apartments of their gold plated toilet seats and diamond doorknobs for something cheap and affordable. Some millionaires actually buy apartments in NYC for their children. Even before they’re born.

We need to work on these housing issues and the cost of living in New York. New York has been able to adapt to changing environments and recover from (some) economic and social crises, yet housing was and still is a major issue in New York City. So the question is, can you spare $2 million for an apartment?