In “Building the Frontier Myth,” Neil Smith talks about the changing attitudes amongst New York City residents and how the thinking about certain neighborhoods has evolved over time. I find it to be very interesting that at one point in time, people had never thought about living on Ludlow Street. No one had heard of Ludlow Street and the residents hoped that this neighborhood would eventually grow up to be another Village in New York. The comparison of crossing Houston Street to pioneers crossing the Rockies showed how dramatic the transition must have been for so many people living in the city at the time.

Overall, this was a period of great change in the urban landscape. The new urban frontier motif not only was about the physical transformation of the built environment but also about a larger cultural change. People were starting to wear the fashion of the urban cowboys. This changing fashion sense in the urban environment in New York was centered in SoHo. In many ways, this part of Manhattan is still known for its new fashion styles and its transformational sense in culture. The residents tend to be artists looking for new inspiration and unique ideas.

In particular, I think that the “Americana West” store represents the sense of change that came across New York at the time. Its theme of a crossover cultural geography between city and desert is applicable to many neighborhoods in New York City today. There are many attempts to bring back styles and use inspiration from other cultures and traditions in New York. For example, Ralph Lauren introducing a collection centered on “the Safari women” to rediscover and reinvent their prominence in gentrification on earlier frontiers.

The use of non-endangered woods in this urban frontier show that although people wanted to bring western influence in the city landscape. This is a good aspect since they were not hurting the environment while they were trying to bring change to the city environment. I agree with the writer that today, the frontier ideology continues to displace social conflict into the realm of myth, and at the same time to reaffirm a set of class-specific and race-specific social norms.

I agree with the definition of gentrifying neighborhoods as bringing a civil class together with a uncivil class and classifying them to which extent civil or uncivil behavior dominates. This determines the extent to which the gentrification was effective and worked in improving the neighborhood. I do not agree with the idea that you need a civilized group to help the uncivilized by defining one as good or bad. I think that the “uncivilized” can be helped through programs and support from the people who are more “civilized.” People should not be labeled as being civil or uncivil because this just creates division in classes.

I enjoyed reading what Braconi had to say about new york’s housing policy as well as other things mentioned relating to that topic. But, there was one thing I wanted to focus more on and these are the three reasons he gives as to why there is a high amount of housing disinvestment in New York. The reasons he provides are that the city owned a lot of the housing, the improvements the city places on it’s housing developing projects and the city’s system of rent regulation. In general, I was wondering if those reasons have an effect on the current housing situation in New York or if they no longer apply.

After further research it would seem that the first reason provided by Braconi may or may not still apply. The reason for this is because since Braconi presented this work homeownership has gone up and in fact reached it’s highest amount in history. Braconi published this book in 1999, according to the New York Times (and the us census) in the year 2000 the percentage of people who owned their own homes was 30% (years before that it was 28%) and 5 years later in 2005 the percentage of homeowners went up to 33.2%. Therefore, one can see a trend in rising homeownership by the person as opposed to the state. Furthermore, regarding the time period he’s writing about, the percentage of owners was about 19% if not less. Therefore, one can see how there is a significant change in the percentage of people who owned homes and this reason wouldn’t have the same effect as it once did.

The second reason Braconi mentions is the idea that the City constantly has improvements on it’s housing projects. This idea in my opinion still applies to today. For example, take the exhibit in the Museum of the History of New York, the exhibit shows a new type of one person apartment. Maybe the tour guide at the museum should go into real estate because she was really selling the house showing how even though it’s small there is a lot of room and also adding that they plan on adding a type of community within the building where there will be a lobby/plaza as well as other places for the residents to mingle. This is a more current example of how the city is providing exceptional housing projects. It would not surprise me at all if when these buildings are released to the public that a lot of people would flock to these buildings.

The third reason provided is the city’s rent regulations and according to recent trends in rent, in Brooklyn rent is increasing over the past 13 months regarding both one bedroom apartments and two bedroom apartments. Regarding the rest of New York City the average rate of rent can range between 1000 and 5000, keep in mind this is just the average and prices could in fact be higher. Furthermore, the more you want out of the apartment/housing, the more you should be expecting to pay more. For example, if you want to add a doorman, you should be expecting to pay an extra 12% minimum and that’s just in Manhattan in Queens it can go up to 43% extra. So, it is clear that these prices might deter people from buying and just as Braconi mentioned, it can drive these people to public housing.

After doing some basic research about the three reasons provided by Braconi regarding modern times it is clear that there is kind of a timeless truth to what he’s saying. The same reasons which he published in this book in 1999 still apply nowadays. However, one must not forget there may be other reasons not mentioned here for why someone would want to use public housing, but one shouldn’t overlook the truth in the words of Braconi.

Much of our class has focused on the shaping of New York City through housing. With a growing (and changing) population, it remains an important part of urban growth. However, government intervention in the housing sector has long received very mixed results. From being labeled socialist to being frowned upon, there has been no shortage of criticism. With instances such as the one Michael Powell writes about in his article Government Can’t Help? Tell That to the South Bronx, on the other hand, we see that there is hope in positively shaping the lives of many through governmental assistance.

The South Bronx has long been known for its rocky past. Associated with words such as “apocalypse,” “corpse,” “macabre” and “resurrection” throughout Powell’s article, it is clear that the South Bronx was severely hurting in the 1970s. Burnt-out buildings lined streets and “smack dealers” were commonplace. However, much of the comeback the South Bronx has made in recent years, according to Powell, can be attributed to governmental rebuilding initiatives.

The article alludes that it was government involvement that revived the once dismal South Bronx. More than $8 million towards 165,000 apartments and four new schools to educate nearly 2,000 children changed the lives of many in the area. As Powell states, “the Bronx stands as arguably the greatest public rebuilding achievement since World War II.” That is no small feat!

Although I was not witness to the changing atmosphere in the South Bronx, hearing stories such as Celida Pinet’s or Ayala’s and Jesus Rivera’s allow me to better envision the stark contrast of the pre-1970’s South Bronx and the neighborhood today. It is sad to think that there are areas in Memphis, Newark, Atlanta and even Chicago that remain hopeless, despite the potential each area may hold.

Unfortunately, the degrees of success of government plans runs the gamut, ranging from failures such as Pruitt-Igoe to successes such as the South Bronx. This uncertainty leads to questions regarding the true necessity of government involvement. Is it a hit or miss situation? The truth is, housing will always be a necessity, especially in dense areas with growing populations. If the past could be used as a guide, planned urban development could possibly be perfected. With proper planning and long-term goals in mind, the government can truly accomplish a lot — perhaps even lessen the stigma surrounding planned development today.

“In Re In Rem: Innovation and Expediency in New York’s Housing Policy” by Frank P. Braconi explains the situation of New York City owning and managing tax foreclosed housing. This was referred to as in rem. This was an idea that I was unfamiliar with but I thought the plans made sense considering the circumstances.

I had never heard of this concept of New York City using properties that have been foreclosed on for tax delinquency. This is probably because, I imagine, this idea is far less practical today than it was during the time Braconi writes about. Property in New York City is extremely desirable today so if a property owner were facing the financial difficulties that would lead to tax foreclosure, it would be easy to find a buyer for the property. This was not the case in the 1970s. New York City faced a crisis as people moved out of the city, the economy declined, and crime rose. As we discussed in previous readings, this was due to a combination of a suburbanization and a decline in certain industries, such as manufacturing. This left New York City with a great number of properties that people either couldn’t afford or didn’t want. Many buildings were abandoned as a result of this.

At a time when New York City was facing so many problems, drastic action needed to be taken by the government. Looking back, it made sense for the government to take on the responsibility of owning and managing the foreclosed properties. Doing so improved the city because they were able to put the buildings to use when no one else was willing to do so. At the same time, they were able to help the people of the city by providing housing to those who otherwise couldn’t afford it. The decision for the city government to own and manage these tax foreclosed properties helped to solve two major problems New York City was facing at the time.

Of course, this was not a simple and perfect solution to New York City’s problems. Managing low-income housing comes with its own problems. The city had trouble paying for the maintenance of the buildings it managed. Braconi explains that in rem housing typically had far more maintenance deficiencies than other rental housing. He states that, at one point, the property management operations cost $294 million annually while rent collections were only $85 million. Braconi also mentions a case in which the family of a child who suffered from lead poisoning while living in an in rem apartment was awarded $10 million. This example describes the difficulties of managing housing. It is important to keep up with maintenance otherwise there could be horrible and costly results. In low-income housing, this is particularly challenging because the rent collections often don’t provide enough money to pay for maintenance. I believe this is the largest issue for all low-income housing and I’m not sure that a good solution exists. The best solution I see when it comes to low-income housing is to spend public money to keep it maintained. Otherwise it could end up being a bigger waste of money and detrimental to the community, as we saw in the film about Pruitt-Igoe. Fortunately, New York City did what it could to maintain the in rem housing.

Eventually, New York City improved and once again became a desirable city. As this occurred, the city government began to reduce its in rem inventory. Although it wasn’t a perfect scenario, I believe New York City’s actions regarding in rem housing made the most of the bad situation and were beneficial to the city overall.

Michael Powell’s article in the New York Times discusses the rebirth of the South Bronx and he attributes its restoration to the government. He seems to make the point that the restoration is incredibly successful and an outstanding indication of the success of the government dictating housing projects, yet I find his statements too subjective.

I found it interesting that Powell would tour the South Bronx in the 70s with his friends for fun. Powell’s description of the old South Bronx and the stories I have heard paint it as a dangerous area, yet Powell says “We could not have been safer; [the drug dealers] assumed we were white boys in search of a fix” (Powell). It seems that the area would be dangerous regardless and it is surprising that Powell considered himself to be safe. Were there not robberies or other crimes happening there as well which could have affected them?

I was also not aware that the South Bronx has greatly improved in crime and I recall hearing news of shootings in the South Bronx. According to New York City’s Police Department, there have only been 12 murders and 1,621 total crimes (including murder, rape, burglary, assault, etc.) committed in the calendar year 2012 in one of the precincts in the South Bronx, precinct 40.* In comparison, there were 72 murders and 7,232 crimes reported in 1990. This is only based upon one of the police precincts in the South Bronx. While crime rate seems to have gone down significantly in the past several years, crime is still an issue there.

Powell claims that the improvement of the South Bronx is due to the efforts of Mayor Koch and Mayor Bloomberg, who “poured more than $8 billion into building and preserved 165,000 apartments” (Powell). The low and moderate income housing in the South Bronx definitely fared a lot better than housing failures such as Pruitt-Igoe but this may be due to a multitude of factors, such as how the housing was constructed. Private developers built much of the housing with government subsidies and “dozens of savvy nonprofit groups” (Powell). Since developers were given incentives to build, perhaps it was enough to sustain the bellow market rent that tenants would provide to the building owners.

I think it would be interesting to see how well the area develops in the future, given some time. Since the housing is subsidized and rent is below market value, there aren’t any incentives for building owners to keep the apartments in repair and up to date. Perhaps given time the housing will deteriorate. Also it may be that a mix of middle and low income housing provides adequate revenues and the neighborhood might eventually change to attract more people, increasing rent prices. I just don’t find Powell’s main message that one public housing and neighborhood restoration process that was relatively successful is a concrete indication that the government is an efficient system to provide housing.

* http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statistics/cs040pct.pdf

Having grown up in New York City, I have always thought of the Bronx as a dangerous area surrounded by poverty. After reading the article, “Government Can’t Help? Tell That to the South Bronx,” by Michael Powell, I learned that changes were taking place in the South Bronx. I had the preconception that the government did not do much for housing in NYC, but after learning about the aid the South Bronx received I was surprised, especially after reading the article, “In Re In Rem,” by Braconi. From Braconi’s article, it seemed like housing during Ed Koch did not really resurrect the housing.

Braconi mentions how public housing units in New York were being abandoned, which peaked in the 1970s. This abandonment was due to Caucasians moving to more attractive housing options and other ethnicities replacing them, especially “black and Puerto Rican migrants.” As these tenants did not have high paying jobs, it became difficult of building owners to collect rent to pay for building maintenance and other expenses. Back then not much was done about housing, but when Mayor Ed Koch noticed the rent payment rate of City owned buildings, he began to take matters into his own hands.

Ed Koch had ordered collections of rent by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development. This is appalling, because it is evident that there are people living in the buildings that can barely afford to get by and the Mayor is demanding payment instead of asking for possible solutions that would help both the people and the city? In response to the Mayor’s demand, the HPD created a network of check-cashing outlets that would allow tenants to pay their bill in person, and the HPD also created the Tenant Legal Affairs Unit. Although I see why the city became strict in obtaining rent from tenants, I still think that they should have come up with plans to ensure that tenants living there would continue living there and be able to pay rent.

Michael Powell’s article described the South Bronx just as I had always perceived it to be, “ghost canyons of burnt-out buildings, saw mattresses and old sinks and tubs piled atop hills of rubble, and encountered smack dealers who cordoned off blocks for open-air markets.” This description was during the 1970s, which was when housing abandonment was at its peak in New York. From this illustration, I am more convinced that Ed Koch’s demand for rent collection is the wrong first step to take. I believe he should have focused on rebuilding and attracting more people to the area and then collect rent.

However, after Ed Koch’s “resurrection” of the Bronx and the Bloomberg administrations addition, the previous portrait of the South Bronx transformed. Although Koch’s first step in dealing with housing abandonment in New York was to collect rent, as mentioned in Braconi’s article, Powell states that Koch decided ‘the city would rebuild.’ This became true during Mayor Bloomberg’s administration, as $8 billion went to building and preserving 165,000 apartments. The construction of these buildings will have “solar panels and roof gardens for low and middle income families.” As a New Yorker, I find that impressive. I have only heard of roof gardens in Manhattan, and seen pictures of roof gardens in the middle of very urban areas. This construction clearly illustrates the transformation of the housing in the Bronx for me, and reduces the stereotyped image of a run-down and criminal ridden Bronx community.

Frank Braconi’s account of New York City’s public housing policy provides an excellent illustration of the challenges of governing a city as sprawling and diverse as this one. Mr. Braconi makes it a point to note that even though the concept of In Rem housing is not unique to New York City, it is certainly a more complex and significant process here than anywhere else. Despite the problems mentioned in the piece about the management of In Rem housing taken over by the city, I think that this story is an example of how city governments can be successful in the face of overwhelming odds.

I was really impressed by all the inter-agency cooperation that went into tackling various problems that arose in the public housing system. It was also very interesting to see the instances of conflict. For example, how the welfare policy actually worked counter-intuitively to the goals of the housing department. I agreed with the city’s proposal to try and implement a policy to have the welfare checks cashed upon signature from both tenant and rent collector. As exemplified by the Pruitt-Igoe debacle in St. Louis, lack of revenue from rents can be devastating to buildings. Thus, it was a good decision on the part of the city to make rent collection an absolute priority. 

Another interesting connection that can be made here is that the extensive abandonment of certain neighborhoods that Mr. Braconi talks about would be exactly the kind of situation that would call for measures suggested by Roger Starr in his article, “Making New York Smaller.” When middle class families rushed to leave inner city neighborhoods for the suburbs, it would have expanded the city’s borders while simultaneously making it harder to carry out administrative functions by making more neighborhoods in special need of  support from the government. Loss of revenue combined with the rise in areas to be taken particular care of, I think, made this a draconian task for New York City’s government. In this case, it is clear why Roger Starr would see the expansion of cities to be wasteful and impractical.

It’s incredible how the New York City government responded to the abandonment crisis but, at the same time, I think that these events signal a larger problem. Mr. Braconi mentions early on in his writing that New York is peculiar in the fact that unlike other major cities, the ratio of residents who are tenants in their homes to those who own their homes is quite high. I don’t believe that this has changed even to this date. Most New York City residents are tenants and thus the threat of such a period of abandonment happening continues to exist.

This is why, contrary to what Mr. Braconi seems to be suggesting, I am fully in support of the aggressive measures taken by the city to shrink its In Rem portfolio during the Giuliani administration. Perhaps the timing of these efforts wasn’t entirely convenient, but I believe it is the correct policy to adopt. It was the city’s responsibility to take care of these abandoned buildings to ensure that the infrastructure of inner city neighborhoods didn’t fall into total disrepair. But, once a neighborhood is stabilized, private investment should be encouraged, even aggressively sought after.