In the article, “Building the Frontier Myth,” author Neil Smith discusses the concept of gentrification and how certain neighborhoods have developed over time. He describes how certain areas have evolved from run down and low income neighborhoods, occupied by working-class residents to affluent communities, dominated by high end fashion boutiques and upper-class citizens. Throughout the article, Smith compares the gentrification of New York City to the “Frontier Myth” or “Taming the Wild West” in order to represent the attitudes of the residents of New York City, as well as the “pioneers” who claim to have been the first settlers who started the transformation of these neighborhoods.

One thing that I found to be very interesting was the way the author described the transformation of the Lower East Side. During that time period, there were many people who were afraid of neighborhoods such as the Lower East Side. To them, it was an undiscovered territory marked by danger and the unknown. For example, in the article he provides a statement from a couple who moved to the Lower East Side, who compare themselves to “pioneers crossing the Rockies.” They believed that they were embarking on a journey, attempting to discover unchartered territories. They viewed themselves as visionaries or “urban pioneers. However, through gentrification, the Lower East Side has been transformed into a chic neighborhood, characterized by bars, restaurants and fashion boutiques. Rents are at their all time high and artists or small retailers are being replaced by high-end national tenants. Due to its increasing traffic and popularity it has replaced low income residents, with wealthy families.

Throughout the article, Smith compares many New York City neighborhoods, in particular Soho and the Lower East Side, to the Western frontier and the jungles of Africa. He explains that this transformation has occurred both in ideology and in the style of the fashion boutiques. In terms of ideology, he mentions that the gentrification of these neighborhoods can be compared to the discovery of the Wild West. He explains that he city is “oozing with optimism.” Areas that were viewed as run-down and low-income were being reinvigorated and replaced with up-beat middle-class neighborhoods. The working-class residents were kicked out or forced to move due to rising real estate prices, thereby transforming the neighborhood into one that was gentrified.

Furthermore, the frontier ideology also transformed the fashion and style of many of the high-end boutiques. Many stores in Soho were selling items such as Navajo rugs or terra-cotta pottery, things that characterized the Western frontier. One store even sold a bleached buffalo skull for $500. The city was taking on a new, rugged identity and it was exemplified throughout. New York City was also adopting an African jungle theme, to the point where many stores were organized to look like jungles. Ralph Lauren created a collection depicting the “Safari woman.” One point that Smith mentioned that I found extremely interesting was the fact that during that time, most New Yorkers couldn’t even fathom what was going on in Africa. It was an area that was underdeveloped, lacked capital and full of famine and war. However, people saw it as a remarkable, exotic fantasy and as an escape from the “gentrified city.”

At the end of the article Smith points a major fault of this frontier philosophy. In the myth the poor are seen as “uncivil” or savages. They are pictured as a group of people who don’t understand social norms and must be tamed and controlled by the civil, affluent and proper upper class. Although I believe that in some cases gentrification may prove to be great, by redeveloping and advancing certain areas, in some cases its consequences may outweigh its benefits. The number of people it displaces may outweigh the amount of good it produces. Therefore, I believe that we must look at each situation and neighborhood in its entirety in order to consider the possible effects that gentrification may have.

Roger Starr’s “Making New York Smaller” took a new approach to the city’s economic issues. This article began off with various fiscal and monetary policies, but then took a unique spiral into this concept of planned shrinkage. While this is definitely an interesting concept, I was surprised that Starr would even think that this was possible. Everyone has their own “doomsday” planned out in their head, and despite all the past events this city has gone through “doomsday” has yet to come, and that’s why I believe Starr’s ideas are far too radical.

One theory that I found very interesting was how Starr broke down the city into different cities; a political city and an economic city. There were two different sources of revenue and expenses, with the economic city including all of the public and private enterprises that create goods and services in the New York. The economic city was the main source of the city’s wealth and it also produced jobs for the citizens. The biggest issue with the economic city is the foreign imports and exports that mess up the cycle, causing foreign investors loosing interest in investing in the city. New York City underestimated costs and overestimated revenue in regards to this and the city’s constituents were forced to default on the loans causing major upheaval in the political city.

The political city is responsible in providing necessary services to the citizens such as the education and judicial system. Revenue in this sector comes from taxes and funding from the federal government to directly provide for families with dependent children, the disabled and the homeless. The issue is that the political city is unable to provide services that people require because of their failure to meet their rising costs of their programs and services due to the limited amount of revenue they receive.  Their lack of revenue with the economic decline leading to increasing unemployment leaves New Yorkers to leave the city so that they can move elsewhere for jobs.

One important thing to note is that Starr wrote this piece in 1976, and the so-called “doomsday” he was predicating never occurred. In the past 35 years the city’s population has gone up from 8 million to 20 million. Another thing is that in the 1976, prior to the Times Square Redevelopment Project, the tourism sector was barely tapped. In those days New York City was a dark and foreign place to visit, but now it is the tourism capital of America. People from all over the world come here to visit the Empire State Building, the red stairs at Times Square. Another thing Starr mentions that is no longer true is that New York is not the “classiest address for a major corporate headquarters,” considering the multitude of companies here.

Looking back at Starr’s plan of shrinking is obviously ridiculous to the New Yorker today. Today we face a similar economic recession, and if someone like Starr were to bring up his plan of urban shrinkage I am positive he would face the same amount if not more resistance now than he did in his time. I feel as if New York Cities has gone through many potential “doomsday,” but this city has always further developed and grown, and that is why Starr’s concept of pulling away from the city is not the right course of action. I am sure he would have never guessed how much the city has improved and grown since 1976, and perhaps even he would have changed his mind for the right course of action. I think it would be interesting to look at what other radical plans are out there right now, which don’t help us plan for the future.

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.

I have actually been to the City Museum of New York during my first IDC Class, however we looked at a different exhibit that dealt with Jacob Reiss’ photos, and we focused on that time period. This time, there was a refreshingly new concept, and I liked that this museum wasn’t studying the past, but rather focusing on the future. This concept of fixing the issues we have with population density is relevant, and the solutions were also very exciting.

One thing was that I never realized was how much big of an issue population density was in America. On the news you hear about China, but rarely about America, however as our guide was explaining, more and more people are moving into cities. Perhaps this can be accounted to the fact that people tend to get married and settled down later in their lives, or that as a society we have become more career oriented. Therefore, I think it is important that we address this issue in our new era of architecture by making buildings that are definitely more space efficient.

The idea that these single roomed, small space apartments were already in Mayor Bloomberg construction plans for the cities amazes me, because as an individual that resides in New York City, I often forget how truly crowded it is here. The prototypes of apartment that were to be built, was definitely my favorite part of the exhibit. The tiny apartment was so cleverly built, and ridiculously space efficient. As a college student who would like to live in the city after I graduate, I can truly see myself living in one of these one-bedroom studios. The idea to me seems revolutionary, and I believe it targets the perfect customer base, because many single younger New Yorkers would like to live in the city.

The only issue that I had with this concept is with actual houses. Personally, I feel that there is a small market for people who would want to live in a small single house. A house is looked at an investment for the future, so it doesn’t make sense to buy a single person home. Also, these houses would be located on the outskirts of the city, and single people are more likely to live in the city, and then move out when they have families. However, if there was a large market this single house market could become big in the renting sector. This could work well with older people who haven’t settled down, but want to live outside of the hustle and bustle of the City.

Last, but not least the museum itself was beautiful. I love the chandelier they had in the entrance, and our tour guide was both passionate and informative about the subject matter. Her extra insight really added into the experience and showed me how seriously people are taking this issue. I also like the exhibition because it directly tied into what we are studying.

As clear and obvious the idea that the government essentially controls our migration patterns is, this thought didn’t occur to me until I read the Federal Subsidiary and the Suburban Dream by Kenneth T. Jackson. What baffled me further was the idea that the government was directly involved in “openly exhorted segregation” regarding giving out loans and building up infrastructure. Essentially, Jackson makes this point that the governments racist public policies that were set have shaped the way the cities have developed today.

His first argument was whether or not it was the governments responsibility to intervene with the housing market in terms of property taxes, loans etc. I feel that over the years America has essentially been gearing towards more socialistic ideals versus democratic because of the increase in government control over our life. However, this isn’t exactly negative because when the government had its Laissez Faire policy the American people, especially the poor, did suffer. If the government had not gotten involved post the depression this country would have fallen apart. This is not Marxism but rather a mixed

Despite the failures of the original housing projects such as the Green Belt town program or the Home Owners Loan Corporation, the Federal Housing Administration policies stuck and carried out because of there leniency in giving out loans. They set the standards by lowering down payments, and setting the concept of appraisals and valuing and rating neighborhoods. I feel as if this was essential to the American suburbanization movement, because without that there was no development and infrastructure for people to move out of the overcrowded cities and into the suburbs.  This idea of valuing homes has definitely become integral in our real estate market today, and has created an entire new sector in our economy.

However, the point that was most striking to me was that initially the Federal Housing Administrators policies were highly subjective and the decisions that the administrators made half a century ago have affected the way the inner cities have developed. By lowering the value of neighborhoods that have more “black people,” the FHA directly gave those people fewer opportunities. The people in those neighborhoods weren’t bailed out after the depression, and therefore the crime rates and infrastructure is worse than other more white suburban locations. Similar to the stories in the Great Migration, these people faced more hardships than others of different races, and the most shocking part is that this was primary because of the government. Of course blacks faced racism, but the government put them in such a position to begin with that certain parts could never rose up after the governments involvement. For instance the example of St. Louis shows how these cities never rose up.

This chapter as a whole by Jackson was very fact heavy and dense to read. It wasn’t an easy smooth read and often Jackson’s points were overshadowed by the amount of facts he included. I think that this is for an educated reader and not someone who knows much background history, and that’s why it was tough for me to get through. The questions I would ask are how do we grow from this and bring back our inner cities? Is there truly a way to deal with housing in an objective manner? Is this segregation ever going to fade away, or will the mistakes of our past never be fixed?