Monthly Archives: March 2013

“Planning a Social Disaster” Response

Leave a reply

In “Planning a Social Disaster,” Hunt talks about the negative impact of towering buildings in cities. The relationship between youth-adult population ratios and overall community safety seems very interesting because I think that this correlation exists in today’s American cities as well. There is also a link between the rise in youth-adults once housing projects are built. For example, widespread social disorder emerged in Chicago’s high-rise projects shortly after they opened in the 1950s and early 1960s.

Further structural forces deepened problems in the 1970s, but social disorder was present in high-rises with large numbers of children right from the start. There are many people who live in high-rises successfully, including families with children. However, it is the relative number of children in these buildings that counts. These large housing projects in Chicago caused the city to have widespread crime in these areas, which is why so many people consider the introduction of high-rise buildings to be a bad thing for cities in general. The contrast between the neighborhood conditions between the CHA public housing units and the regular housing’s youth-adult ratios is startling. The inverted ratios show the effect of youth dominance on the community’s condition.

I also agree with the point that the blame should not be put on families for having kids or single parents with kids. Rather, it should be on the policy changes that created a communitywide collective efficacy problem. Another important factor that needs to be taken in to consideration is the fact that there are many families with children who cannot afford sufficient spaces so they need to go and live in poor neighborhoods. Reasons like these make the slow development of neighborhoods with these projects inevitable and dangerous eventually. It also explains why the youth-adult ratio is so high there since it mostly has large families who need affordable housing.

This theme of finding bad neighborhoods where cheap housing is located still seems relevant in today’s American cities. For example, in New York’s neighborhood of Harlem, it used to be predominantly for poor housing and minorities. Historically, Harlem has been a bad and dangerous place in large part because of the housing projects there. The condition of the area is effected by the low-income families being desperate and not being occupied.

I also find it interesting that elevators are not commonly found in public housing because they become play-toys for kids. The structure of a building can apparently make a big impact on the effectiveness of the housing for its residents. However, I do not think that this is that effective since crime is still very prominent in these neighborhoods. I agree with the claim that policy changes fix neighborhoods and it is not as dependent on the age of the inhabitants or the building structure.

“Designs for a New Metropolis” Response

Leave a reply

At the very beginning of the chapter, a complaint is expressed about the tower in the park public housing that exists in New York City and most other cities in America. I personally don’t mind that urban residential buildings are not aesthetically pleasing. That isn’t the point of them. Nobody comes to the city to look at the housing. The people who live here don’t even look at the housing. It’s all about the commercial areas and the tourist sites. In a suburban setting, the appearance of housing developments is more important because there isn’t much else to look at. In the city, people go home to sleep and that’s it. More attractive buildings wouldn’t bring more people here or change anyone’s opinion of the city because it’s not what they’re here to see in the first place. These buildings serve their purpose of providing plentiful and affordable housing, and that’s all that matters.

In addition, Bloom points out that these high rises provide anonymity. This is something that I view positively. Cities don’t have the atmosphere that requires everyone to know each other. People often come to New York City to fall into the crowd and not be watched constantly anyway. I think it’s nice to be able to go home and have privacy. There’s no pressure to see other people or interact with anyone. After a long day, you can just make the trek home and enjoy the rest of your night.

Later on in the reading, Bloom says that Moses’s developments “paired middle-income projects with public housing in many low-income neighborhoods” (133). This is considered to be good planning, but I don’t really see why. I could foresee a lot of social stigma against middle-income people living in low-income neighborhoods. Why would they want to live there? Why would people of either income level feel comfortable in such close proximity of the other? Across New York City, most of the population believes that certain income levels pertain to certain neighborhoods (which may or may not be true), and I don’t think those boundaries are going to break anytime soon. In general, it seems that people like to be around others who are within the same income level. If this actually became a concrete initiative—to mix socioeconomic classes—I’m not sure if it would work too well.

An issue with public housing that Bloom mentions is that it displaced a lot of stores. This made me wonder if New York City could change its general layout. Currently, each neighborhood is practically self-sufficient because it has housing and stores to service residents. What if there were sections of the city reserved for housing and other sections reserved for stores? That would destroy the concept of small communities, but I’m curious to know if it would work. It might make the city less urban, since it basically imitates the model of a small town where everyone lives in certain areas and there’s a centralized space for businesses, but the city is so big that I think it could work out just fine. We would never reach the point where everyone knows each other, so it would probably feel just like it does now.

Nonetheless, there isn’t exactly anything wrong with what we have now. The NYCHA has done a fantastic job with clearing slums and creating better housing across the city. There might have been unfortunate consequences here and there, but that always happens to some extent. Compared to other cities, as Bloom says, New Yorkers are much better off when it comes to their housing. There’s probably room for improvement, but there isn’t anything necessarily wrong with what currently exists. However, there’s still a negative connotation when it comes to the projects. Under ideal circumstances, that would no longer be in effect. This is what we need to combat now. We’ve learned how to successfully create housing, so we can now focus on eradicating the bad perceptions that people have of it.

Response to Postwar New York A New Metropolis

Leave a reply

This week reading brings about a wide array of views concerning the urban planning authority, Robert Moses, and their cooperating yet sometime rivaling relationship.

The author points out contemporary public criticisms about Moses, which we all know are numerous, yet I was surprised to read that Moses only could have gotten his way because his view and the view of the government coincided at that time (here we should neglect the fact that Moses did have enormous political influence). Moses’ dismal taste on housing design, surprisingly, was in compliant with the NYCHA design standard. It turns out that such a “standard,” demonstrated by “the lack of toilet bowl covers and closet doors” with special credit to Alfred Rheinstein’s “innovation” (128), was legally accepted back in the day because the NYCHA adopted the nature of a housing factory that churned out standardized, mass-produced products. Not only so, Moses and the NYCHA shared the same preference for “genuine slum clearance.”

It was interesting to see that sometime people who share the same vision often dispute upon the mean to its fruition, as in the case of the rivalry between Moses and the NYCHA during the post-war era. Moses wanted his masterpieces to be built upon slum clearance sites whereas the NYCHA rather constructed upon wastelands, or vacant land sites. Chairman Butler, before losing his seat due to his fervent opposition to Moses, claimed that project on vacant land sites would eliminate the time-consuming process of relocating residents in slums, all the while driving upward spending on public transportation. I felt sorry for the guy, although not too much, since his allegiance with Moses on the issue of overall slum clearance would later backfire as a backstabbing move to Moses which later drove Moses to remove Butler of the high seat in the NYCHA.

Besides the often-overlooked effects that slum clearance brought about i.e. racial integration as in the case of black and Pueto Rican slums residents, after being discharged from their Manhattan haven, were integrated in government housing projects in Bronx neighborhood. Yet in the proverbial list of pros and cons, the cons often outweigh the pros. Slum clearance practically destroyed the neighborhood, created public outrage over the clearance itself and over the loss of so many “brownstones.” And in most cases, public housing in most cities created a “second ghetto” worse than the first.

After running wild for a while, both Moses and the NYCHA were finally forced by the state government to integrate different income classes through slum clearance projects, for it is doubtful that Moses sincerely thought, without political pressure, that slum clearance areas will logically adjoin public housing areas” (133). Criticism from the state commissioner of housing at the time Herman Stichman substantially contributed the Moses and NYCHA’s cooperation. He said that the concentration of subsidized housing projects led to the development of ghettos that impeded meetings of different classes in the neighborhood and thus prevented empathic class feeling. The result of Title I redevelopment was the ultimate culmination of government’s effort to “positivize” slum clearance. It did not only celebrate Moses’ redevelopment scheme but also became the key of linking middle and high class houses with subsidized housing.

Design for a New Metropolis- Response

Leave a reply

In this reading I was shocked to find that Moses was not as large as an influence on the slum clearings and low standard of living in certain poor areas of New York City. The chapter mentions how NYCHA was the backbone and Moses just extended/implemented the ideas. I knew these low-cost housing were crowded and cramped. However, it was unknown to me that these housings lacked toilet bowl covers and closet doors. Is it really that much cheaper to not have those parts in the house?

This reading also mentions slum clearances versus vacant land projects. The clearance policy seems to be attacked. I do agree that it demolished many buildings that were still in good condition, and that some of those buildings are aesthetically better than the new ones that were built. However, thinking about it on the financial and economic side, it might be easier to rebuild rather than “renovate.” But indeed, I do believe the slum clearance in general was terrible because many people lost their homes and were forced to find elsewhere to live, or to be cramped up in different neighborhoods.

In the section by the critics, I strongly agree with Lewis Mumford that the housing seemed to be built for one class of people. In other words, the way the city seems to be laid out is to benefit one class of people more than others. In New York City, I see that the outer edges and parts of way Upper Manhattan are full of housing that are for people on the lower side of the social class. And in the center of the city, where it is the most dense, the buildings are for people on the higher side of the social class. Yes the city does offer a lot of housing, but again, as I mentioned in previous blog posts, majority of the housing are not affordable. They are all new and fancy and pleasant, but the cost is not cheap at all. Overall, I believe that the city was planned for high middle class to upper class people, and everyone else was just shoved to the sides.

Another problem stated was about the design of housing (specifically public housing). Moses has criticized that the buildings were all the same and monotonous. His response was that it although cost was a concern, there must be other ways to make the buildings a bit more pleasant. I did notice that all the projects look the same: brown, small windows, small grass area blocked by low black gates/fences, etc. It does look mundane, and to New Yorkers, seeing a building like that, we all automatically think “project.” This takes away from the aesthetics of the city structure. Architecture is really important. It is the foundation and the roots of the city. I agree with Moses that there must be ways to make these buildings better, without adding too much expenses on it.

Furthermore, the problem with projects is that there is a lack of stores near the housing. Bloom says that this takes away the “liveliness and social cohesiveness” of the area. I concur with Bloom’s statement because my dorm used to be near Baruch Houses and my current dorm is right near the projects as well, and both do not have stores nearby. This also relates to how in the beginning of the semester, we read an article about how stores bring safety to the neighborhood. In addition, this reminds me of the Barclay’s Center how Atlantic Avenue is full of stores and lights, and is really safe, while Flatbush Avenue lacks stores and is dark, and appears to be dangerous. I do understand that stores do not really want to be in the area, and that their business might not be as successful there rather than elsewhere. And that the stores that were built just seemed to not do so well that many were demolished. I wonder why that is the case, and if there is any way to improve the situation, and make the stores function better/well.

Class 9 – “Tower of Dreams” Response

Leave a reply

Many have debated the origins and significance of housing—both public and private—in New York City. In general, housing is essential to daily life. Public housing has also become more prevalent in the city over the past few decades. Thus, it is more important to figure out what works and what does not, rather than debate the theory. Michael Kimmelman touched upon this issue in his article Towers of Dreams: One Ended in Nightmare by comparing two very similar housing projects and pointing out why one failed while the other succeeded.

Our past few classes have heavily centered around housing: Federal housing policies and the New Deal, a Museum exhibit about modern housing in New York City, Robert Moses and urban renewal. We have learned of public housing’s origins, its trials and tribulations, as well as the significance it plays today. After establishing this foundation of knowledge, I enjoyed reading Kimmelman’s article because provided an example of ‘good’ housing versus ‘bad’ housing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Penn_South_from_ESB.jpg

Penn South Housing Cooperative

Kimmelman’s article compares two “aesthetic cousins,” Pruitt-Igoe (built in 1954) of St. Louis, Missouri and the Penn South (built in 1962) development in New York City’s Chelsea neighborhood. It was surprising to read that while both projects were almost identical, the Pruitt-Igoe development had seemingly gone so wrong. It became infamous for poverty, crime and segregation due to inadequate funds, deteriorating conditions and the 1949 Housing act, respectively. Tenants slowly abandoned the complex and it continued to deteriorate, falling prey to drug dealers and murderers until its demolition in the 1970s.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2441/5816024404_e78c69171e_o.jpg

Pruitt-Igoe Complex

A major contrast to this, however, is the continued success of Penn South. Tax relief and stable income from maintenance payments and retail units provide money for improvements. Communal spaces, green areas, elevators and openness create a sense of community and “hominess.” This, I think, is the most important factor driving Penn South’s success: Tenants who feel safe in and connected to their place of living are more likely to take better care of it.

When reading the personal quotes Kimmelman placed in his article, I noticed a sense of attachment. Although Pruitt-Igoe so quickly and drastically deteriorated, original residents such as Sylvester Brown, Jacquelyn Williams, and Valerie Sills all had fond memories of their home. But since architecture itself was not at fault, what can we do in the future to prevent another Pruitt-Igoe? Perhaps it would be wise to reassess the purpose these housing units serve. Is it more beneficial to incorporate both low-income and market-rate units, should they be geared towards senior citizens as many NORCs suggest, or is there a better function these buildings can serve? There is no doubt that housing needs—especially in New York City—are shifting. We now have to learn how to best move forward when addressing these needs.

Bloom – “Designs for a New Metropolis” || Response

Leave a reply

In “Designs for a New Metropolis”, Bloom emphasized that slum clearance was a top priority. The goal was to clear the slums out and replace them with high-density public housing buildings. This seemed like a pretty good idea that would benefit many people who needed subsidized housing. Costs of these projects however, not only included the monetary amount, it also came at the expense of owners of “nice brownstones” (132). Regardless of whether or not these homes were recently renovated, everything in the slums had to be cleared out. I disagree with this decision that the New York City Housing Authority made. If these quality brownstones were kept, they would add an aesthetic appeal to the neighborhoods.

The structure of these public housing units were not pleasing to the eyes. In fact, they all looked the same from neighborhood to neighborhood – bland and basic tower blocks that did not stand out. Buildings were usually several stories high with standard windows and fire escapes. There were no balconies. Nonetheless, I approve of what this decision the NYCHA made. These public houses proved to be just enough and acceptable. They were not appealing, but they were better than the living conditions of slums. They also proved to be efficient because there were many units within each project. The NYCHA also kept up with maintenance and security, which played a big role in the success of New York City’s public housing.

Another decision I applaud the NYCHA for is the mixing of middle income people with low income people. This prevented “low-income ghettos” and fostered class feeling (134). These public housing units prove that neighborhoods can be diverse and provide dwellings for people of different backgrounds and income levels. The decision shows that not only a specific group of people are targeted. The NYCHA just wants to provide affordable housing for New Yorkers as a whole.

To my surprise, public housing in the United States has largely been failure. In many cities such as St. Louis, Chicago, and Newark, large-scale public housing projects were demolished. An infamous one was Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis. At first, its high-density housing seemed to work. Residents were happy to live in spacious and clean homes. But due to budget cuts, the lack of funding led to poor maintenance. Eventually, Pruitt-Igoe had become an unpleasant place to live with crime rates rising. I believe that if public housing projects in other cities such as St. Louis had kept up with maintenance and security costs, they would not have failed. I also believe that a mixed-income public housing plays a major role in success.

Overall, I am pleased at the NYCHA and what it has accomplished. Based on my personal observations around New York City, I see that public housing works. When I was performing door-to-door canvassing for a local politician (Assemblywoman Grace Meng) back in high school, I had to enter some of these public houses. I recall that the Bland Houses and Latimer Gardens in Flushing were well maintained. There was security. I also observed that residents were of different backgrounds and income levels. Hence, if other cities were to imitate New York City’s successful public housing, they should incorporate these aspects.