In “Planning and the Narrative of Threat,” Larson mentions that in the Third Regional Plan “‘[a]bandoned and underutilized’ waterfronts and leftover industrial sites and landfills – together accounting for fifty thousand acres of brownfield – would be redeveloped” and that these spaces ” were rezoned for ‘adaptive’ reuses or slated for demolition and redevelopment.”

An example of this is the revamping of the area about Flushing Creek. The waterfront of the polluted Flushing Creek is set to be developed into a waterfront promenade with housing and small businesses. As of now people do not live there, as it is zoned for high industry, which contributed to the pollution of Flushing Creek. Under the rezoning the area will be redeveloped after the creek is dredged by the Department of Environmental Protection. From an environmental standpoint, the plans to develop in Flushing West are great.

However, as Larson quotes from Yaro, “[Gentrification] is one of the constants, one of the results of the success of the city.” This result of the success of the development along Flushing Creek is an exact concern of one of the community members who spoke at the Flushing Rezoning Community Alliance meeting. The representatives from the Department of City Planning and the Department of Housing and Preservation seemed to try to appeal to the community by asserting that there are resources to help tenants that are facing increases in rent and that the affordable housing included in the plans are for the benefit of the community. The DHP plans to raise awareness of these resources so that fewer people would worry about the threat of gentrification on their rents. But is that enough? Wanting to improve the city is fine, but the success of the city leads to adverse effects to the NYC residents of middle and lower incomes.

Discussion Question: How can the city be improved and developed while maintaining good relations with its lower to middle income residents?