This article points out an issue that all city planners have faced. My family comes from Bombay, and in Bombay there are literally slums with people living in shacks. The Indian government is striving to remove all the slums; however there is always that issue of what kind of housing should be built along with what to do with the millions of people that are to be displaced. Obviously there are both pro and cons to the situation, and I believe that Bloom clearly outlines them in his piece.
At first thought the idea that government will build subsidized housing sounds a great use of taxpayer money, however the notion that in order for this to happen there will be a destruction of existing homes is what makes this entire thing questionable. The most surprising for me was that how poorly built these new apartments were. For instance Robert Moses and the NYCHA both implemented homes that didn’t even have toilet seats or closet doors in their public housing projects. First off, these people were shifted out of their homes, and even if they wished to live in public housing instead, I am sure they would want to live in minimal humane conditions. If the government is to build something for its people then the living space should be accommodating. For instance in India, many of these poor people who move into government housing end up selling their place and move out to the suburbs where they can create a whole new life for themselves.
The original goal of trying to make these “slums” into an “attractive part of the city” is reasonable, however the execution of it is where something went wrong. When walking through the Bronx and the Lower East Side and looking at what we call today the “projects,” I realized that these places don’t make the city more attractive, but rather it serves as a monotonous public space. Bloom describes how the city planners of the future tried to fix this issue by changing little things such as the color of the bricks, nevertheless it clearly did not have the intended effect. Also the “decentralization” of these slums so rapidly changed the dynamic and demographics of these areas, because these places were wiped out clean. The demographics were mixed with the lower and middle class living together, causing higher crime rates and security issues.
Another interesting point that Bloom points out is that perhaps Robert Moses’ racism was the cause of such mundane and to a point cruel housing system. The NYCHA was also to blame for this, but going along with the past reading, part of the reason could be his disdain for the lower class. If that were to stand true, then in my eyes that is a corrupt government system. It’s also important to note that the NYCHA sponsored the building of homes that served a lower density of people, but were of higher quality. To put lower class people to a disadvantage when they’re already struggling is unethical on Robert Moses part.
Last but not least, I want to explore the question of what to do in the future. Like I noted before, although there may be a diminishing population of slums in America, this issue is still of high relevance to the rest of the world. What are the most efficient methods to please both the city planners as well as those residing in the “slums”? Is there a cost efficient method to this issue? Overall, this piece written by Bloom brought light to issues that I never even knew existed in our public housing system. The mistakes that were made in the past have unfortunately carried forward and have created displeasing public areas.
