Monthly Archives: May 2013

Macaulay Seminar 4 Conference

Leave a reply

I felt that our presentation on Saturday went pretty well. We attended the first sessions, at 10. We presented in the third floor classroom south along with 3 other groups. Since we had presented twice before and we had been working on the project for the whole semester, I think we mostly knew the information pretty well, so it was easy to present. Most of the other students seemed interested and paid attention to what we had to say. We did not have time during our session for Q & A, so it was only the presentation. Something I noticed and really liked was the variety of topics that were presented. I only saw seven other presentations, but by the titles of the presentations, I could see that they were all different and no other class seemed to focus on mega projects like ours did. Many of the presentations I saw were about a problem that exists in New York City now and policy that could be implemented to help solve it.

One of the presentations that I really enjoyed was “Pollution in Chinatown,” which was presented by a group of three students from City College. I liked it because I have spent a lot of time in Chinatown, and I live in Flushing, which is like Chinatown #2 so it was relatable. I always knew that it is dirty and polluted, but I didn’t really know the extent of it and all the different reasons for it. A big part of the presentation focused on the buses that travel to other cities on the East Cost. I’ve always known about the buses, but I just thought of them as an inexpensive alternative to more costly companies for travel and I never really though about the impact the buses have to air pollution and traffic congestion. As was presented in the presentation, there are arguments for and against the buses, and I can understand bother sides. On one hand, it is a cheaper way for people to travel, especially in an area with many immigrants and elderly. But on the other hand, there are some damaging effects to the neighborhood and environment. I wouldn’t argue for getting rid of the buses, but I just hope it down not expand to other neighborhoods, such as Flushing. Flushing is already crowded and congested and there are buses that travel from Flushing to other places, but I don’t think it is like how it is in Chinatown. Seeing the presentation and the negatives of the travel buses, I really hope that it just stays in Chinatown and doesn’t expand.

Another presentation that I enjoyed was “Homelessness in LGBTQ Youth” by a group of three students. I liked that it focused on one specific sector of the homeless population, one that I think most people, including myself, don’t really think about much even though they make up a higher proportion compared to its population in the country. The main thing I got from the presentation was that sensitivity and knowledge are the biggest is really needed to help LGBTQ homeless youth. It’s simple and a small thing, and is needed not only in the policy to help LBGTQ homeless youth, but also really in everything in life.

 

Presentation at Macaulay

Leave a reply

My group presented our presentation on the Highline on Sunday at 10:00 am. We were the first group to present and we explained our topic fairly well. The other presentations were diverse and covered a variety of topics such as drug and sexual education and the theme of liberty versus security. The presentation I most enjoyed was about the Upper West Side.

Our group presentation went well. We began by asking the audience member if they had been to the Highline and whether they were familiar with it. Mostly everyone had been there or knew of it. We explained some background on the Highline along with how the Highline is funded and how a BID works. We then compared the Highline to some other NYC parks and then discussed how the Highline might benefit from a BID.

The students viewing the presentation didn’t seem very enthusiastic about our topic since we talked a lot about funding, which they might have found a bit dull, and they didn’t ask many questions. The two professors in the room asked us about why the residents were opposed to a BID and how to make it appeal to them. We discussed the benefits of a BID to the area and how the Highline could hold members-only events and build a sense of community for the members and residents in the BID. We were also asked if there were any other controversies surrounding the Highline though we were unable to provide any other major debates about the Highline since there didn’t seem to be any significant ones. Overall I think we presented well but perhaps we could have made the presentation a bit livelier for those who weren’t particularly interested in the topic.

I mostly enjoyed the presentation about the Upper West Side. The group discussed the problems that some areas of the neighborhood faced and they gave specific responses of how to tackle those problems. They talked about a portion of public housing units that are secluded from the rest of the neighborhood. These areas have large open spaces but there is nothing surrounding them but the housing so few people walk through. This causes high levels of crime. Their presentation reminded me of Jane Jacobs’ theories on the safety of sidewalks. Since the area was so secluded and there were few people who needed to walk by, the area became prone to crime, as Jacobs explains. The group suggested that a road is built between the public housing, and they displayed a map showing a large amount of space that could hold a road to cut through the secluded public housing area. This would increase car and foot traffic and theoretically decrease crime. The group also mentioned how they public housing was built as a “tower in the park” and seemed most reminiscent of our classroom readings.

I enjoyed the Upper West Side presentation the most because they clearly discussed the future of NYC by identifying a problem and putting together a solution to solve the problem. Some of the other presentations merely restated some facts and didn’t put in much analysis nor offer solutions to ease the issues. Overall though, all the presentations were well done and thoroughly researched.

Honors College Conference

Leave a reply

My group went to the 2nd session of the Conference, on Sunday, from 10am to 12pm. Personally I think the slides are wonderful. The content presented was clear cut, presentable, and not wordy at all. We utilized less writing and more pictures, which is what was suggested to us by the professor and our ITF. Each of our members knows what they talked about and minimized ad-lib talking as much as possible. Yet, some of the materials were glossed over due to the time constraint and strict time keeping by the ITF overlooking the conference. Personally, I think that presenting the succinct content of a 20-page paper would have taken way more than just 10 minutes. Otherwise, I think our group did a great job on the presentation. When the Q&A session came up, we did our best to provide answers for the audience, and they were satisfied.

One of the presentations that stood out the most for me was named “RISE,” about the initiative to improve New York City’s policy on runaway youth. It was interesting because the presentation talked about something of which I have no information about. The group presenting was an enclave of students from 3 different CUNY who took IDC in Macaulay Honors College. Their communication was impeccable, reflecting what I suspect is a more special kind of education you could receive at the Honors College’s headquarter. What stood out to me the most are two things. First, the annual cost of taking care for a runaway youth in a shelter is $90,000, which is a lot, considering that I, living by myself, spend only $30,000 at a maximum, taking into account the scholarship that I have received from the college. Second is how the government, with their R.I.S.E initiative (of which abbreviation I cannot remember), plan to do for the kids. Besides providing food and shelter, the government is thinking of providing psychotherapeutic counseling for these youths in the form of a mix between Addict Anonymous and extracurricular activities. The kids get to talk about how they feel about their situation and engage in meaningful and cognitively changing activities. Sustaining the kids for the very long-term would be really inconsequential whereas helping them thinking about a better future ahead and how to attain it seems like a very good idea.

Response to “The Rise of the Creative Class” by Florida

Leave a reply

In this chapter of his book “The Rise of the Creative Class,” Florida talked about a number of things that yet again summarized what we have learned in this class: the vitality of a community.

His method of searching of what people, the epitome of which can be summed up in the term “creative class,” really look for in their neighborhood. Where people work and live, in Florida’s opinion, depends on his so-called “quality of place” or “territorial assets” that accompany a place and make it attractive to people. These assets include “what’s there,” the combination of built and natural environment, “who’s there,” the community that is the center of the neighborhood, “what’s going on,” the vibrancy of the neighborhood. It makes sense when one of the people cited in this chapter said that what he wants, is a place “that is not done,” a place that is constantly in motion and changing its facade every other day, a place where creative minds can find their inspiration drawn out of the neighborhood, the architecture, and the people.

It confuses me, however, when the author claims that creative people prefer traditional suburban lifestyle. When one thinks about the suburb, one can imagine the repetitive scenes of lines of cars leading into the nearby metropolis, of people crowding in old diners for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, of soccer moms driving their kids back in time for dinner, of shutting of the light at 11pm. When one thinks about the suburb, one thinks about repetition, not changes, about what’s done, not about what “is not done.” But what makes even more sense, that not every suburb is an ideal place, the suburbs that the author refers to locate in Long Island, Silicon Valley where easy accessibility is provided into New York City, San Francisco, and vibrant metropolis. Like the author says, the suburb stands alone is not attractive, but when they are located near the cultural hubs that are the cities, they become “product of the openness and diversity of their broader milieu.”

When Florida mentioned Robert Putnam and his theory of social capital, i feel myself lamenting to his painful yet realistic thoughts. People have become increasingly disconnected from one another and from their communities, resulting in a loosening bonds between family, friends, and the broader neighborhood of which they are a part. This weakening bond between people thus leads to detrimental consequences, most of which I can relate to. Look at Baruch College, which has been the beacon of school spirit and strong community in the past, has become today. Longer class time due to a heavier curriculum, increasing pressure of time and the pursuit of internship and jobs identify the first key factor in Robert Putnam’s civic malaise. Second is the fact that Baruch is a commuting school where classmates actually live far away from each other; most of the kids are from Long Island, Queens, Bronx, and Brooklyn whereas the school is located in the heart of Manhattan. Third is the plethora of distractions that modern technology presents to the young and naturally easily distracting college students. Instead of socializing with each other, they browse the Internet to watch YouTube, chat with friends in other, way more distant areas on Facebook, or laugh by themselves at one of the memes on 9gag. Fourth is the dominance of the me-generation or the X-generation that makes up the majority of the school. The detrimental consequences that I have mentioned are those that I have already experienced: weakening community, poorer health, less happiness, and a disappearing appreciation for knowledge. The author was lucky to have fared well in his neighborhood in Pittsburg, PA. It sounded like a wonderful place to live and belong to.

The Creative Class-Florida

Leave a reply

 

Richard Florida’s chapter regarding the creative class goes over a topic that is not entirely foreign to me. The creative class, a new era in society, is a concept I have gone over in several of my sociology and economic classes in high school. However, what I enjoyed about this chapter was that Florida focused less on people, but more on the development of cities due to this rise of creative class. He zooms in on assumptions and old theories regarding the structure of cities and then challenges them to apply to the modern day cities. Florida’s ultimate point is that creative people need creative cities, and he does a great job by giving examples backed up by his own research.

The primary point that Florida brings up is that we have moved on from industrial cities, and have now moved on to creative cities. What people are looking for in cities has changed over time, and a prime example he gives is of  the college student he refers to from Carnegie Mellon who is now choosing Austin, a still developing expanding city, versus Pittsburgh, an established older city, to live in. The previous qualifications a successful growing city have changed to increasing diversity, creativity, nightlife, activities and affordability instead. Initially people moved to cities because that’s where their work took them, but now industrial cities has changed to creative cities where people move to have an overall better lifestyle.

The next assumption that Florida successfully challenges is the original idea from Thomas Friedman, which is that “you can innovate without having to emigrate.” Globalization has made the world a smaller place for sure in terms of communication, however location still matters. This explains why that now more than ever the growth of cities and an urban area has imploded, resulting in 50% of cities containing 75% of the words population. Florida provides a good analogy by saying that the “world is anything, but flat, and its spikes are getting higher and higher.” The spikes are referring to the growing cities that have clusters of the creative class. Globalization doesn’t spread out activity evenly across the world, but rather it creates spikes where the most innovate and creative come together.

 

Another interesting point that Florida brings up is the idea of human capital. It was notable to see how Florida tied together urban theorist Jane Jacobs and Robert Lucas’ theories to come up with this new economic factor of human capital or as Lucas called it “Jane Jacobs externalities.” Labor, capital and knowledge are all-important economic factors but as Lucas points out there is nothing more important than the talent, ideas and energy real people bring in. I really liked the example of how the music industry which is very competitive and independent, has joined together in major cities such as Los Angeles and New York City. You would think that to face less competition, musicians and artists would spread out and dominate in the areas that they are in, but instead they rush to the innovate, creative cities where they all fight to rise to the top. This directly showcases how creative people come together to multiply together to exponentially grow.

 

Overall, I really enjoyed Florida’s piece because it ties directly back to our project. Understanding the basis of what a successful growing city is crucial to urban development. The way a city is structured and the different creative atmospheres it contains are important to the economic development of that city. Creative people, educated people, innovate people need a place to stay where they can express and work the most efficiently.

 

 

 

Five Boroughs. One City. No Plan Response

Leave a reply

Jarrett Murphy’s article regarding New York City’s rezoning and future plans under Bloomberg’s administration is lacking in various areas. Government regulation on land use changed since 2002 with the 9,400 rezoned block in New York City. This large amount of change during Bloomberg’s administration makes me wonder why it was all even necessary. Under Koch, the maximum amount of rezoned blocks was five, and this was even into the 90s, which was not too long ago. Although the claim that rezoning was done to pursue “transit-oriented development” it does not appear to be the case. About more than half of the rezoned areas downsized actually had good proximity to transit. Thus, it seems that City Planning is working against its supposed goal and is just reshaping New York City as it pleases.

As the first city to apply zoning on a citywide basis, we had started off other cities rezoning such as Chicago and Miami. Although a different tactic was taken, the plans of these two cities were successful. Efforts to succeed in our rezoning plans in 1939, 1950, and 1969 all failed. According to Tom Angotti, if comprehensive plans were made and succeeded, New York would be different than what it is today. This would not be too much of a big deal in my opinion, if the article had not mentioned that City Planning is not working on long comprehensive planning and is instead narrowing down their focus to individual proposals and neighborhoods. From my perspective, why do areas have to be rezoned anyway? Either way all the different areas make up New York and the districts are fine the way they are. Even if they are rezoned, people in the area most likely will not know that they have been rezoned. I know I would not.

With the name PlaNYC, one would think it is a plan to help New York City’s future. However, according to Murphy’s article that is not the case. Apparently, “PlaNYC was never intended to be what its name implies,” instead it is supposed to be an “agenda.” This is the simplest, yet biggest mistake that could be made. The name of something should tell the audience or give the audience an idea of what it is, yet this name was chosen because it was “cute.” Even when planners had told them that the name gave off the wrong meaning, it was still decided that the agenda would be called PlaNYC. From this, I think that this group needs to rethink their name or fulfill the meaning of PlaNYC with real plans instead of agendas. To get things done, the city needs plans more than agendas.

The Uniform Land Use Review Procedure creates a difficult path for plans. The developer must first gather paperwork to be reviewed by City Planning, mainly a complete environmental impact statement. The EIS is not only costly for the developer, it is also risky as the market involved in the proposed plan fluctuates as the plan is being reviewed. As time is of essence, approval of the EIS in a timely fashion is crucial, but even for a short project it takes three to six months to review. Besides time being a problem, some developers “downplay obvious concerns.” I think this is a bigger problem than time, since not going into depth of problems in the environment can lead to future harm and damage. If a developer does this, I do not think their proposal should be considered, because this small action can lead to bigger more harmful actions.

Although New York City is always growing and changing, a long comprehensive plan to ensure its future is possible. Without a plan, how will New York solve the present and past problems that will affect its future? People cannot just rush ahead without a plan, so neither should the city, and officials should understand that and start working on a plan.

Five Boroughs. One City. No Plan. – Jarrett Murphy

Leave a reply

Jarrett Murphy raises legitimate concerns about the focus of rezoning under the recent administration and the lack of city planning as a whole. Murphy believes that developers have become supremely influential in dictating current regulations. Furthermore, the disunity among constituencies has made it difficult to create a comprehensive city plan to appease the major people groups in NYC.

It is difficult to imagine that under the Bloomberg administration, the City has revised zoning equivalent to the size of Boston or San Francisco. This excessive rezoning will undoubtedly dictate the way land will be used. The city has consistently upzoned transit oriented sites in hopes of further development. However, reports have also shown that the city has downzoned some areas, like Staten Island, where the population was whiter and wealthier. Such selective zoning raises concerns that city’s goals are driven more by developers than its own residents. In fact, due to inclusionary zoning, developers now have the right to build larger structures if they create affordable housing or other residual benefits to the neighborhood. Development projects such as the Atlantic Yards have already made Community Benefit Agreements to appease the local residents. Unfortunately, these agreements are very difficult to enforce because community boards neither have the resources to initiate or guarantee successful litigation. Essentially, the new zoning regulations opens the door for megaprojects to become a reality throughout the city, regardless of opposition from residents.

With this in mind, the task creating a master plan for the City is becoming a key question. Should NYC have a comprehensive plan for the future? In retrospect, the city would probably be better off (in terms of density and overall infrastructure) if planning had been pursued earlier. Although PlaNYC sets goals for a sustainable future, it is more of an agenda than a constructive plan. Hence, there is a call for government officials to devise concrete steps to implement the ideas expressed in PlaNYC. However, New York City is very different from the likes of Chicago, or Miami, where comprehensive city planning have been implemented without stark opposition. The political atmosphere of our state suggests that no plan will be “good enough” to appease all constituencies. Furthermore, the power of the land lies in separate hands such as the MTA, DOT, and others, making it difficult to obtain unified support. As a result, there is a constant struggle that renders the idea of comprehensive city planning useless in a city like New York.

Altogether, the general trend of zoning regulations points to the influence of real estate developers. As the city continues to progress, there will be more leeway given to large-scale development projects than individual residents. Hence, in planning for the city, there needs to be concrete steps for initiating a sustainable future while respecting the rights of each community.

Murphy Response

Leave a reply

In “Five Boroughs. One City. No Plan.” Jarrett Murphy talks about the vast increase in zoning that has taken place during the Bloomberg administration. Zoning designates the permitted uses of the lands, such as for residential, commercial, manufacturing, the style and size of buildings, and the size of yards, amongst other things. During nine years of Bloomberg’s administration, there were 108 rezonings, and since 2002, 9,400 blocks in New York City have been rezoned. This is especially astonishing when compared to the 1980s and 90s when it took five years to rezone five blocks, and it seems like it doesn’t take much work or effort or thought to rezone during the Bloomberg administration.

Amanda Burden, head of the Department of City Planning, said that the rezonings “are setting the conditions for sustainable, transit-oriented growth” and are “designed to accommodate a population of 9 million New Yorkers projected by 2030.” This sounds nice in theory, but I wonder what happens if the developments and projects don’t work out. Maybe a certain type of zoning won’t work in an area. If the neighborhoods and areas do not develop like expected or people don’t live or go there, what happens? It would be a waste and it could leave neighborhoods empty and ruined.

Something interested mentioned in the article that we have also discussed in class was giving developers the right to build large structures if they also build affordable housing, protect cultural institutions, encourage bike racks, and other things that are supposed to help the people of the city and make it better. This sounds like a good way to make sure that there is benefit to everyone, not just the developers and a certain part of the population, but it would only work if done correctly. One thing to look at would be how having affordable housing mixed in regular market housing would affect who lives there. The article also says there would be bonuses for builders who protect neighborhood grocery stores, but I wonder how this would be done since by developing the area, rent would probably go up thereby kicking people out since they could no longer afford it. There is also the question of whether or not developers do what they are actually supposed to.

In the article, Pratt Center’s Eve Baron writes that planning is not just about the physical, but also about having day care, schools and other services. That along with transportation, parks, and health care is part of a comprehensive plan, but New York has never really taken a comprehensive approach to planning.  This sounds good, but I think it’s difficult to do when an area is already developed. If you have a very little developed area, then it much easier to put things where you want, but if it’s a developed city with a lot of people and businesses you would have to see where an upcoming neighborhood is before deciding to add more transportation or school or something. There is not point in planning and building something if you aren’t sure that people will go there.  Just because you build it, it doesn’t mean people will go.

Right now, the plan or agenda in place for the city is PlaNYC. It isn’t a really plan, but I don’t believe that a complete developed plan is really needed for it to succeed. It’s more of a vision of what the City should be like in the future, and perhaps there is not really a concrete strategy to everything outlined in PaNYC, but having it is a start and it could be decided on later on. What might work in area might not in another, like with parks and open spaces, so catering the plan to each area would be best.

Five Boroughs. One City. No Plan. – Response

Leave a reply

New Yorkers move at a rapid pace round the clock, the city is always buzzing with activity and yet, it is not a common perception that the city itself is changing at such a pace. New York is already so built-up and midtown Manhattan, at least does not see much construction apart from renovations and repairs. Jarrett Murphy’s article was really shocking because I would have never guessed that the basic fabric and infrastructure of New York city itself had been changed so massively in the past few years. According to the article Five Boroughs. One City. No Plan, Mayor Bloomberg has overseen the rezoning of 9400 city blocks. I think it is remarkable that a city this old and this well established still has the potential to undergo such massive change in such a short time.

That being said, change on this scale is bound to cause controversy. The controversy that is evident in most of these stories is regarding the level of community participation and influence in the development projects. A Columbia university professor is quoted in the article as saying that the recent projects in New York City are all based upon what developers think is right for a neighborhood. In other words, there are extensively planned, highly funded projects that are being built across the city with the support of the municipal government but, these projects are mostly designed with some kind of centralized urban-design vision that is in the mind of the people in-charge. Local communities are often not consulted or incorporated into these plans.

Even when it is the case that community organizations get to have a say in the planning of a project, there is still the problem of enforcement. Jarrett Murphy points out that in the Atlantic Yards project, for example, ACORN has managed to negotiate for a certain number of affordable housing. But as the project evolves, it is likely that the number of these units may be cut down. If not, the sizes of the units may not be as diverse as promised or perhaps “affordable” will have a different definition from the one originally intended. Mr. Murphy states that ACORN has no way to enforce it’s agreement with the Atlantic Yards developers.

Personally, I think that this line of criticism is not valid. I would argue that a community organization such as ACORN getting to negotiate and have some of its demands met is a democratic process and should be appreciated for what it’s worth. However, the idea proposed in this article is that, instead of having these fiercely negotiated and unenforceable agreements in some of the projects on an individual basis, the city could develop a comprehensive plan to make new project development more inclusive of community opinions. In much the same way that attention is paid to whether new projects are eco-friendly or not, there should be a common, comprehensive set of guidelines to ensure that urban development is democratic.

It is often very easy to get swept away by reports and presentations that explain how a project is going to be good for the climate or how it is going to accomodate the greatest possible density in the most comfortable way. But as Mr. Murphy cleverly points out, democracy has taken a back seat to these larger, theoretical ideas about what is ‘good’ for a sustainable city as determined by the city’s bureaucracy. It is great that the city is growing so rapidly and bringing in so much investment but it would be better if, in addition to eco-friendly and city-friendly ideas, we could also have people-friendly ideas.

 

Five Boroughs. One City. No Plan Response

Leave a reply

In the article, “Five Boroughs. One City. No Plan.” Jarrett Murphy discusses the recent spree of rezonings under the Bloomberg administration and the fact that New York has no “comprehensive plan” as to its future and the direction that the city is heading. According to the article, since 2002, New York City has rezoned 9,400 blocks and over 18 percent of the city. Zoning laws are crucial to the development and growth of all major areas. They regulate how the land may be used, what developers can build on the land, and dictate the specifications that must be included  when building in a certain area. According to Murphy, if the city wants to continue to thrive and focus on its future, it must develop a plan regarding the foundation for its growth.

As Murphy argues, I believe that it is extremely important to develop the areas surrounding public transportation. One key factor that attracts residents to particular neighborhoods is its access to transportation. Why would they want to settle in an area that is inaccessible. They want to know that it will be easy for them to get to and from their destinations. Therefore, the city should pursue, as the article states, “transit oriented development,” which is encouraging growth near subway stations and bus stops. However, according to the Furman Center report, 1/4 of the areas where City Planning has allowed growth are not near transit lines. Murphy argues that instead of encouraging growth in areas that can be easily accessed by public transportation, the Bloomberg administration has been focused on retaining talent by providing them with housing along the waterfront.

I found it very interesting how certain areas, such as Staten Island, are preserved, while others including Williamsburg, Greenpoint and Jamaica are targeted for increased density. The Furman Center found that areas that were preserved happened to be whiter and wealthier than areas that were upzoned. This stat really made me wonder if wealth and money control whether or not your area is rezoned to encourage investment. It seems to me that in the case of rezoning wealth plays a major factor when considering whether or not an area will be preserved or targeted for development and increased density. It really goes to show you that instead of focusing on transit oriented areas that are suitable for development the City Planning Commission looks towards low-income, minority-dominated neighborhoods.

After talking about New York’s lack of a comprehensive plan, Murphy continues to discuss PlaNYC, and how it can not be considered as a plan. For starters, I believe that PlaNYC is a vision instead of a plan. It states certain objectives, such as a city where everyone has access to a park, however, it does not mention how it plans to accomplish that goal. And as Murphy states, “it doesn’t tell you, this area needs growth, this area doesn’t need growth.” It lists an agenda or what they hope to accomplish, but doesn’t lists the steps to guide us towards accomplishing those objectives. Although I agree that it has led to many achievements and will provide benefits to the residents of New York, it does not address some of the major issues concerning the future growth of the city and the development that will take place in order to accommodate the growing population of New York.

I believe that it is imperative that the City Planning Commission creates a “comprehensive plan” that will help satisfy the needs of the increased future population of New York. They must focus their attention on their residents instead of the visions of developers. Furthermore, they must choose neighborhoods surrounded by public transportation and that is easily accessible. They must have a clear cut plan on what must be done to accommodate for the future growth of the city and must take this plan into action in order to quickly and efficiently meet the needs of its residents.